Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the mandate of the European Commission is very clear: a strong Europe faithful to its values, respecting the central role of this Parliament. The first 100 days leave concerns about the working method and also about the relationship with the pro-European platform that underpins it. First of all, we see with concern the migration package that gives in to a security discourse, confusing immigration with security, and also with concern the so-called simplification package, under the pretext of de-bureaucratisation that pushes us towards dangerous deregulation, putting at risk some of the social and environmental achievements. But this beginning of the mandate, Commissioner, should be focused on people's core problems. In 2026, the deadline for the implementation of the RRP expires. I see with particular concern the delay and reprogramming of the RRP, for example, in Portugal and I think that they should also be focused on this matter, because it decides people's lives. Finally, there are 100 days of major geopolitical changes, and defence must be a priority – but it must not come at the expense of cohesion policy.

Mr Oliveira, I absolutely agree with what you said and I would like to ask you the following: do you or do you not consider that this is a regulation that goes against what is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights? Contrary to what is practiced in Portugal, for example, which does not have detention centres, has temporary accommodation centres, up to 72 hours, citizens can appeal their decisions. I ask you whether or not this is in the sense of a blatant violation of these people's human rights.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, while it is true that a consensus has been found in this House for the Pact on Migration and Asylum, the fact remains that the issues of return continue to divide us. If there are measures put forward that are positive, there are three that I would like to stress as being negative and which, from my point of view, from the point of view of S&D, violate fundamental rights. Firstly, the idea of giving Member States the freedom to choose with which third country to negotiate for the return of their citizens. I believe that this freedom is a danger, because it does not meet what the Commissioner has said here, that there must be a common policy of return. Secondly, the possibility of people being sent to third countries that have not ratified any instrument of international law or that cooperate with non-recognised entities, including those controlling parts of countries that are not diplomatically recognised (terminal) is a danger and I think it should be reviewed. And finally, Commissioner, (I am even ending) the fact that unaccompanied minors can be sent to third countries is a danger and violates the most basic freedoms – and I ask the Commissioner to go back on that point.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is right to recall the memory of Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová, especially so that we never forget that media freedom and the press are an essential pillar of the rule of law and that a free and independent press makes and deepens our democracy. It is therefore right to greet all those who, sometimes in difficult conditions, continue to carry out their mission of informing with courage and determination. That is why it is important for everyone, even all crimes against journalists, to be thoroughly investigated and for justice to play an absolutely essential role here. Today, we are facing threats to press freedom. The various Rule of Law Reports have said so. The information that the Commissioner brings here is important, but it is not enough to say that we have a shield of democracy, there needs to be effective action and the implementation of the Media Freedom Regulation plays an absolutely essential role here. Today let us honour the courage of all those journalists who died doing their job: inform the people, because that's what they exist for.

Thank you very much, honourable Member, it is very simple. There are several moments when we need to realise that it is not enough to say that they like the Draghi report. The Draghi report has a set of measures that point to the possibility of the European Union being able to invest more, first and foremost in skills, in the just transition, both green and digital, first and foremost in the way in which we can generate wealth. I think it is essential that we gain strategic autonomy by always leveraging the welfare state, but the deregulation that is envisaged here is a deregulation that attacks the welfare state.

Mr President, Honourable Member, I can tell you the following: I totally disagree with what is the compass for competitiveness that the Commission is presenting here, all the more so because it is based on the deregulation on which Mrs Lídia Pereira has just insisted. In my view, Commissioner, this deregulation... As I am in favour of simplifying procedures, I believe that this deregulation is a step backwards in a significant set of achievements. And what was heard here from the benches on the right this afternoon is a danger to the future of the Green Deal in Europe, for example.

Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this debate comes at a particularly demanding time for Europe and at a time when we are witnessing the reconfiguration, if you will, of globalisation. This morning's debate on the work programme was a debate where I hoped there would be more answers. To call it a compass or something else, Commissioner, let me tell you, competitiveness needs more investment, and that is what I expect from this debate. I was hoping that today we could talk about more competitiveness, more social rights, and how we are going to finance this need for strategic autonomy. This is why deepening the single market is important. Let's forget the adjectives and go to the concrete. How does the European Commission think it can get more investment to ensure that our capacity in the global environment is effective, that the Draghi report really has consequences? This is the answer we need from the European Commission.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the day we present the working document of the European Commission, what is expected is to strengthen democracy and confidence in our institutions. And what is expected is that the President of the European Commission will have respect for the most democratic institution of the European Union, which is the European Parliament. To discuss this working document today is also to discuss democracy with this respect at a time when we all feel that our democracies, both in the Member States and in the European project as a whole, are in crisis and under attack. When we hear the Commissioner speak during his presentation quickly on all the points, not on any specific ones, we get the feeling that competitiveness is the key. But, Commissioner, there is no competitiveness without democracy, there is no competitiveness without a strong rule of law that responds independently in its justice and transparently in its procedures. There is no competitiveness without equal opportunities for all. There is no competitiveness without the ability to integrate those who choose here the European area to live, to live with dignity. There is no competitiveness if women in the labour market are not treated equally to men, there is no democracy and no competitiveness if we are not able to look at the green transition and the digital transition with the necessary social justice. That is why, Madam President, and I will conclude, competitiveness and democracy must go hand in hand and the institutions deserve respect. This Parliament deserves respect on such an important day as today, with the presence of the President of the European Commission.

Mr President, I totally agree that President Trump's statements are statements that are not only an infamy, a disgrace, but also a blatant violation of international law. They contribute to the genocide and ethnic cleansing that is taking place in that territory. And, yes, this Parliament has a duty to take concrete action and strongly condemn what are unacceptable statements for a suffering people.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have just come from a difficult mission to Palestine and Israel, where I have witnessed the destruction, despair and precarious conditions in which thousands of people, including many children, are trying to survive. Gaza is one of the most densely populated regions in the world, which has been facing daily challenges for years due to systemic constraints and limited resources. Since the horrific attack of 7 October 2023, conditions have worsened further. All wars and conflicts, and this is no exception, also leave the marks of the disappeared. The Mothers of Plaza de Mayo in Argentina, the Mothers of Saturday in Turkey, books and films such as the recent I'm Still Here, about Rubens Paiva, in Brazil, show the inhumanity of disappearances and the apnea of the search for answers in which their family members have plunged for decades. Add to this Syria, Cyprus, Ukraine. Today, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights aims to ensure that its calls for truth, justice and non-repetition of history are heard. Let us fight for memory to continue to live in freedom, with respect for human rights.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I was very concerned at the end of your speech, Commissioner, let me share this with you. In 2021, when the money for the Integrated Border Management Fund was increased, the President of the Commission said - and I quote - 'the European Union will finance neither walls, nor wire, nor fences'. The Commissioner concluded his speech by saying: “Let’s increase funding for fences». And I would like to tell you, on behalf of the Socialists and Democrats, that we fully agree that we need to manage our borders, but managing our borders does not mean a violation of human rights, as we have often seen. Therefore, the money that has been allocated – more money – for the borders, for this fund, cannot be for the surveillance cameras, for the fences, for the walls, because that is contrary to what the European Union's migration policy has been over the years. And so, Commissioner, what I wanted to say to you is that you take into account the data you mentioned here, which I mentioned yesterday in my other speech, and which are true: in 2024, there was a decrease in irregular immigration by 38%. That means, Commissioner, that we must continue to be attentive to the implementation of the Migration Pact and have a humanistic view of what immigration is. We will not stop immigration with our hands, as we do not stop the wind with our hands, it is impossible. Migration flows have always existed. Frontex has often been accused of violating fundamental rights and, recently, the platform for cooperation on undocumented citizens has warned of the systematic violation of these citizens' human rights at the borders, so what I am asking you to do is to continue to be the guardian of the treaties and to treat people with dignity.

Honourable Member, I am totally in favour of transparency, totally in favour of transparency. But to demand – with the vehemence with which it is calling for civil society to be scrutinised – that we also scrutinise those who are lobbyists for private interests, those who have, over time, been contributing to and attacking various governments and also attacking our institutions. But, ladies and gentlemen, I am amazed at the EPP, because the EPP has gone after a false far-right narrative that wants to silence NGOs and castrate NGO funding.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this debate is not really about transparency and lobbying. Because if it is about transparency and lobbying, then let's look at the instruments, let's look at the lists of lobbyists that are funded and let's ask the questions that we have to ask. But this is not the debate that we are asking for here, and that the right has asked for, it is a debate to say that we do not want to continue to fund non-governmental organisations, civil society and citizenship, because we believe that they are harmful to the democratic system. This is the only point that is under discussion, and so we at S&D are all in favour of funding rules being transparent. But we will be outspoken against silencing civil society, which is part of our democracies and must continue to be supported, to also be part of that instrument which is our active citizenship, and to which the European Union must contribute.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, this debate is about reality and perception, and so I would like to give you two figures that I believe are essential to the seriousness of this debate. The first is that there is no UN report – contrary to what the right and the far right have said – that links immigration to crime. And secondly, ladies and gentlemen, the truth is that, from 2023 to 2024, irregular immigration has fallen by 40% in the European area. But having said that – and these are two facts that run counter to perceptions and undermine this debate – there is a reality that we need to discuss: whenever policies are more restrictive to immigration, human trafficking increases and illegal immigration increases, because more secure rules push the most vulnerable citizens into immigration. That is why, Commissioner, I am very pleased that you have said here that we are moving forward with the directive that is being revised. My only question is: When will the revision of the Directive take place? And for when a serious, strong and effective sanction to human traffickers? Because, yes, they need to be penalized.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the priority these days is security in Europe. That was the debate with the Commission and the Council this morning, that was the debate with the Polish Presidency, and yes, it is a priority. But I think the first word is: Let us focus on the efforts that the European Union must make to become more autonomous, stronger and better able to respond to the challenges that lie ahead. And if we're worried, at S&D, about security, I just want to be very clear: increased defence investment must not come at the expense of investments that ensure the security of all, guaranteed by cohesion policies and funds. Ensuring the safety of all implies protection against criminal activities. And combating criminal activities means combating poverty, social exclusion and all forms of discrimination through a strong cohesion policy based on solidarity, as stated in Article 3 of our Treaty. And so we must also step up defence investment, without a doubt, but investment that must be coordinated at European level, generating significant savings in the sector, in order to maximise Europe's military capabilities. We need more and more efficient defence investment to also ensure investment in the security of all citizens.

Mr Joao Oliveira, I totally agree with you. Today is a day to advocate for the deepening of our democracies, and I have no doubt – as Nelson Mandela once said – that there is no better instrument for deepening democracy than investing in our education, investing in citizenship, investing in our values. But that does not dispense with very strong action on what are the legal instruments, which exist in the European Union at our disposal, to combat disinformation, lies, manipulation and interference in our democracies.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a bloodless war, but one that kills our democracies, kills our freedoms, paves the way for hate speech and allows individual freedoms to be attacked in the name of false freedom of expression. It is the defence of democracy that is at stake today in this plenary. And it is asking and demanding and urging the European Commission to break its silence, and so I welcome the investigation it has opened, but there must be consequences. What we are talking about is the goals of these oligarchs, the owners of these platforms, who, just yesterday, in Elon Musk's speech, were very clear: Sow hate speech, divide us all, attack our institutions and plant, sow what is false information. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that today is not a day for words, today is a day for this plenary to come out strong in defence of democracy, demanding in the action of the European Commission and certain that the values of the European Union, which are 75 years old this year, are alive in the name of democracy, in the name of democracies, in the name of freedom.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I take this opportunity to wish a good mandate to the new President of the European Council and I believe, ladies and gentlemen, from what we have been hearing, that this is a discussion at a particularly demanding time, when we are experiencing very complicated geopolitical tensions. It was the elections in the United States, we still have the war in Ukraine and we must not forget the conflict in the Middle East and the need to resolve what is happening with the massacre in Palestine. Europe in the world, as a space for promoting multilateralism, must continue to defend a rules-based global order that upholds human rights and fundamental freedoms. Europe needs to remain the beacon of progress, freedoms, tolerance, a bridge of dialogue with the five continents. We affirm our strengths for our values, without ever being naive. The fact that we are the largest trading bloc in the world and that we have trade agreements with 72 countries is one of our strengths. But, ladies and gentlemen, at this time of geopolitical tensions, we need to strengthen our security, we need to strengthen our values and we need to speak with one voice in the United States of Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to underline the importance and relevance of this debate in the political context in which we live, following, incidentally, the serious events in a Member State of the European Union, Romania. If there were doubts for all of us, what is at stake is the very survival of our democracies, of our democracy, as a collective project. This is a theme that touches directly on the pillars of our society and on the way we understand the public space in coexistence with freedom of expression. There is no doubt, Colleagues, that social networks have brought significant benefits, facilitate communication, promote the sharing of information, give voice, in the public space, to everyone. But it has also become clear that platforms are now very powerful tools that can weaken and destroy the foundations of our democracies. Social networks that are owned and managed by private companies call into question the balance of power among citizens. Too often, we place in the public space the power of public discussion in the hands of these companies that, by the nature of things, defend their interests and their shareholders. The goal of many of these platforms is to maximize the time that citizens use them and, for this, value, as we know, what sells the most: Manichaean debate, violence, inflamed speech, hatred, xenophobia, disinformation. In short, they stimulate polarization, fuel populism with simple answers to very serious and complex problems. That is why it is important for this House to remember, and for us to have the two Commissioners here to remember, that we have instruments, such as the DSA and the DMA, but also the Artificial Intelligence Act, which urgently need to be implemented. And what I think this Parliament can do is to be at the Commission's disposal so that, together, we can, in the Member States, force regulation of these platforms so that we can continue not only to save, but to strengthen rights, freedoms and guarantees, which is nothing more than to strengthen our democracies.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam European Ombudsman, I would first of all like to welcome you and join those who have congratulated you here on the work and courage of the work you have done over time. I would also like to congratulate the rapporteur for the work he has put before us and for the speech he has made, and to emphasise once again the importance of this report in terms of protecting the values of justice, transparency and promoting the sound management of the European Union's resources. But, especially in this report on the activities of the European Ombudsman, I would like to welcome the courage, bravery and relevance of talking about migration issues and the respect for the human rights of these citizens who are seeking a safe haven here. The way in which it has made recommendations to Frontex should therefore be emphasised. It is about human rights, the rule of law, but also about what our protection of the inclusion of all citizens should be. That tomorrow we will be able to live up to the responsibility in the choice we make with the next citizen and the next Ombudsman.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what is unbelievable is that in the 21st century we are having such a debate. And we only have the debate about discrimination in the 21st century because, really, no matter how many action plans there are - and Portugal is one of the Member States that have the action plans in place - the truth is that states like Hungary, Bulgaria or Italy violate the rights of the LGBTQI community every day. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing with a few more speeches here today. But more than speeches, what we really need to know is: when states fail to implement action plans, when states systematically violate human rights, when governments pretend every day that they do not listen to the voice of this Parliament in defending human rights, whether we will continue to make proclamations or whether we should truly act. That is why it is very important that the next Council can resume negotiations on the unblocked 2008 anti-discrimination directive. Respect for human rights.

Mr President, the irony of fate is that Simone Veil was the first woman President of this European Parliament. Simone Veil was the woman – Jewish, woman, Minister of Health – who defended the decriminalisation of abortion, who defended the decriminalisation of abortion, who defended that women do not resort to abortion by choice, but resort to abortion for a need, and that it is always a tragedy. And it is this tragedy of clandestine abortion, of the lack of access to public health that must be denounced here, because what we are talking about, my dear colleagues, is human rights. I am part of a country that, in 1982, immediately after the revolution, started the discussion. It took 35 years for us to have the decriminalization of voluntary termination of pregnancy, for the sake of social justice, for the sake of access to public health, but above all for respect for all those who do not have opportunities, but who need to resort to medical access. That is why a Europe that respects human rights is a Europe that respects the right to abortion, and Poland must now backtrack on its decision.

Dear Mr Oliveira, I am happy to reply. Yes, the Socialists and Democrats here in the European Parliament have approved the Pact for Migration. The Portuguese Socialist Government contributed to making this Migration Pact the best possible compromise. What cannot happen at the moment is, in exchange for perceptions and fear and hate speech, to want to revoke a pact that has not yet been implemented. But, I must say, I will always be against the externalisation of borders, because I consider it a mistake. Commitments are commitments. And in this pact, the externalization of borders has always been a mistake.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we really need to be very clear about the Commission's and the Council's proposal on migration, because this measure is actually against the values of the European project. It's a mistake, it's inhumane, it's the externalization of borders. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an affront to human rights. It's not just me saying it. The Italian judicial system and the Court of Justice of the European Union itself also say so. The fact that the President of the European Commission suggests that the European Union follow innovative solutions, such as those in the Albania-Italy Protocol, should not only concern us, but also not silence us. I recall here the Italian court decision ordering the return to Italy of the migrants transferred to the detention centre on the outskirts of Tirana, for not considering the countries of origin, Egypt and Bangladesh, safe countries. I recall, ladies and gentlemen, the Geneva Convention, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and, more recently, the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the case concerning the Czech Republic, which states: ‘a country outside the bloc cannot be declared safe unless its entire territory is considered safe’. And, my dear colleagues, we are not talking about money, we are talking about human lives. The policy of externalising borders is truly a mistake, because it destroys people's lives. We are following the European project.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have long known that the Iranian regime has a clear agenda of internal oppression of its own population, which is reflected in the intensification of attacks against human rights, having launched a war against women and girls through increasingly violent repression, reinforcing the use of the death penalty to silence dissent. The Iranian regime has also been committed to a clear agenda of destabilisation of the region and Europe by directly and indirectly supporting and sponsoring terrorist non-state groups and facilitating their involvement in illicit activities. It should also be borne in mind that the Iranian regime continues to supply unmanned aircraft and has started to transfer missiles to Russia, thereby reinforcing its clear support for Putin’s autocratic regime in its war of invasion against Ukraine. Recent reports from the European security services – that Iran may have been involved in the explosions and shooting at the Israeli embassies in Stockholm and Copenhagen, using local criminal groups – are a good mirror of this assumed attempt to destabilise the European space, sowing a climate of terror and fear. That is why, in the face of these threats, Europe must act now, without complacency, by taking measures to strengthen the resources of the security services and cooperation on intelligence and information at European level. It is also important to give Europol and Eurojust more means to prevent further attacks and to act in advance in the event of a threat, always ensuring respect for the rights, freedoms and guarantees of all citizens. The European Union has a responsibility to extend restrictive measures against the Iranian regime by including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the European Union terrorist list, as has already been requested by this Parliament. And in the face of these serious threats to all of us, the European Union must even strengthen the tools at its disposal to ensure respect for human rights – living in a free, democratic Iran that respects fundamental rights – every day.