Speeches

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, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union recognises the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. And that is why this is also the place to condemn what is religious extremism on the one hand, but also what is the anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim discourse that is raging in our society. This is the speech, moreover, that leads to the instrumentalization, as has already been said, of many of the political agendas that we have today, which lead, moreover, to the anti-immigration speech. That is why, Commissioner, I think it is very important, in addition to welcoming your campaigns, that it is absolutely essential that religious freedom is a point to be defended here in Europe, but that interreligious dialogue can also serve to integrate those who seek a place of refuge in Europe, a port of refuge. And for that very reason, religious freedom, tolerance and respect are all about complying with the values of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, respect for the rule of law can never be taken for granted. That is why this annual report is of particular importance, not only because of the improvements it has already shown in some Member States, but also because of the concerns it leaves us with. And one of the concerns is the press freedom index 2024, which shows what we already knew: freedom of the press is threatened by those who should guarantee it, the political authorities. More and more governments and political authorities are failing to fulfil their role as guarantors of reliable, independent and pluralistic journalism. And that is why I must leave here my perplexity with the Portuguese Prime Minister's statements yesterday about the impartiality of journalism, in which he accuses journalists of receiving questions blown by their earphones and calls for calmer and less breathless journalism. This worries us as democrats and should worry us because this populist rhetoric, supported by a certain traditional right, feeds backsliding on respect for the rule of law and fundamental rights. I therefore urge the European Commission to strengthen this report not only with what it says, but above all with its recommendations, and to monitor its recommendations.

Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, I have fortunately grown up in a Europe of values, in a Europe of solidarity, peace, justice and freedoms. And today, what I expected was that those who hold the presidency of the European Council could tell us here that their view on immigration has changed, that migrants are not, are not poison, and that hate speech only inflames what we have been seeing this morning. This is not the Europe I want, Mr Orban. This was not the Europe that the great Schuman or Monnet thinkers dreamed of for all of us. And for this reason, its migration policy deserves a vehement repudiation. We cannot continue to witness lies and hate speech against immigrants, those seeking shelter in Europe. And what the Prime Minister has contributed in Europe is to a speech that is, every day, divisive and that is, every day, against what this Parliament, which is the House of democracy, should be. No, we do not want your vision of Europe, Mr Orban.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Pact for the Future, contrary to what has been said here a moment ago, is really a starting point and not an end point. And it is absolutely important at a time when we are experiencing a number of conflicts on a global scale. It is therefore important to reinforce that, in this pact, the United Nations puts on the table the vision of multilateralism and the strengthening of multilateralism for the resolution of conflicts. We can't solve the issues on our own. Secondly, strengthening developing countries to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. And let me finally highlight the Digital Agenda and also the Climate Change Agenda, which can only be done if there is a just transition and if there is equal opportunities for all. Climate change is not a myth – it is there and it needs to be addressed and it needs to have answers. That is why the Pact for the Future is so relevant and why the European Union must be involved in this debate.

Madam President, 'there is only one radical way to preserve the human being: without concrete reinforcements, tanks, planes or fortifications. The radical solution, ladies and gentlemen, is called 'peace'. No more blood and tears. Thirty-nine years ago, following these words, Yitzhak Rabin was murdered, and I think it is worth remembering him today to remind him that a path of peace is possible and that a path of peace must be built. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, has been declared persona non grata It is urgent to silence arms and build the path that leads us to peace. Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Borrell said yesterday that we must build hope for peace, strengthen humanitarian aid, recognise Palestine as a state. I couldn't agree more, but I have to add: more than words, we must act, and that is why we must also suspend the trade agreement between the European Union and Israel so that the words of Itzhak Rabin 39 years ago make sense and so that the thousands of dead and the millions of displaced can be honoured in what must be strong action by the European Union to condemn, to call for a ceasefire now.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Anne Applebaum explained this week, in an international interview, the danger of fake news, disinformation and the control of social information networks by several world leaders who do not have an ideology in common, but rather the will to remain in power at almost any cost. That is why we know that, in recent years, authors opposing the European project and liberal democracy have used the manipulation of algorithms to spread chaos on the Internet and thus contaminate our democratic societies. That is why the European Union, with the European Media Freedom Regulation, which entered into force in May, is to be congratulated, but we need to work harder. We need to implement the regulations on service and the digital market and strengthen the annual rule of law report, but we also need to be aware that artificial intelligence must be at the service of democracies and not as an enemy of democracies. Democratic societies, strong and capable of guaranteeing the rights, freedoms and guarantees of all of us, are made with a strong media, but we must monitor those who damage the European area every day and the area of rights, freedoms and guarantees.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think any of us have any doubts and I, like the Commissioner, am proud to live in the Schengen area and in a Europe, in an area without internal borders, in which the free movement of persons is ensured. Since the Treaty of Lisbon that is, and since the Treaty of Lisbon that we also know that this Schengen acquis introduces its exceptions. But the great concern we have today, these days, is that the Schengen exception has become the norm in many Member States, which is why we need to cut through two myths. The first is of those who think that reintroducing borders means that immigration is the greatest crime. All the data we have points to the completely reverse path. And the second myth is that, by closing borders, we will have flows of legal migration – another myth that is false. Closing and restricting borders means opening up space for mafias, organised crime and irregular immigration. That is why, dear colleagues, I understand that a speech that is based on fear erodes our democracy. And that is why, Commissioner, the European Commission must be the guardian of our Treaties, and that is why it must enforce Schengen. And enforcing Schengen means...

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, three years ago the Taliban again attacked Afghanistan and therefore imposed rules that are inhumane rules, where women no longer have a voice. At this minute, I would like us to remember Simone Weil as the first woman President of this Parliament and remind her that we can be the silenced voice of so many women in Afghanistan. For the respect of human rights, for the work that we have to do and, above all, calling for this Parliament to be able to put pressure so that these women can be saved by giving them asylum and welcoming them, in an urgent need for everyone, everyone, everyone to be able to be free.

Madam President, Commissioner, representative of the Council, I think the time is particularly difficult. And it is particularly difficult because we are still experiencing Russia's invasion of Ukraine's territory. Therefore, in this context, the recent decision of the Hungarian authorities to facilitate the access of Russia and Belarus to the Schengen area, immediately after Prime Minister Orbán’s visit to Moscow, is dangerous, worrying and runs counter to the principles of cooperation to which all Member States of the European Union are bound. For more than ten years, we have witnessed, with some perplexity, Hungary's abuses of the rule of law and respect for human rights. The visa facilitation decision that is presented, when in parallel the Hungarian authorities decided to withdraw the right to housing of Ukrainian refugees, is nevertheless extraordinary and difficult to understand. It is truly a clear example of a profound lack of humanism and solidarity. But as far as Hungary's 'national card' is concerned, as well as the simplification of visa procedures for 'guest workers' from Russia and Belarus, we should look at Commissioner Johansson's words, but also at what has just been said here: Russia is a security threat. We need more, not less vigilance. Allowing potential Russian spies or saboteurs [free] access to European Union space undermines the security of all of us.” This is what we are talking about and this is the explanation that the Hungarian government must give. Their ‘national card’ could undermine the collective framework in place since the invasion of Ukraine, with the suspension of the visa facilitation agreement with Russia in summer 2022 and the intensification of the scrutiny of future applications. I would therefore like, ladies and gentlemen, Madam President, Madam Representative of the Commission, to urge the next College of Commissioners to continue the efforts of Commissioner Johansson, who just last week assured - and we have heard this assurance even today - that the Commission will continue to assess very closely Hungary's behaviour in this area and to implement measures to ensure the security of the European Union and all its citizens. This debate is not easy because we should not take a Member State as a whole. But the attitudes and decisions of a government, which can jeopardise the security of the European Union, deserve the attention of this House.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think that any of us is unaware that there is a before and after of new technologies. There is a before and after of digital platforms and we know how distorting the use of digital platforms undermines our democracies. For this reason, over time, the rules that define the limits of this communication have been changed to accommodate these same differences. The only thing that must remain equal and unwavering is the radical defence of our freedom, privacy and democracy. Digital giants and users are not, and never have been, on an equal footing. The Digital Services Act, but also the Artificial Intelligence Act, first made and adopted in December 2023, was therefore very important. The latter aims to ensure the protection of citizens but also to hold platforms accountable for the fake content they often help disseminate. Fake news, image and video manipulation and fallacious propaganda do irretrievable damage to our democracies. This is clearly visible in the exacerbation of tensions, in the visibility that algorithms give to hate speech and xenophobia, and in the questioning of the very democratic legitimacy of our institutions. We know well that to defend democracy we cannot pinch our rights, freedoms and guarantees. Freedom, yes, but responsibility as well. In the online space, as in the offline space, the European Union will even have to continue to seek a path that guarantees respect for the privacy that strengthens us all and for the freedom that defines us. The European Union must therefore be at the forefront of this balance, between modern artificial intelligence and technological platforms and respect for rights, freedoms and guarantees. Because it's not just about defending platforms, it's about defending our democracy and our freedom.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the previous colleague rightly said, let us not forget history. And it is history that gave rise to the European project, the European Union: a space of respect for human rights, for difference, for freedom, for equality. Therefore, even in this space of defence of the rights, freedoms and guarantees of all, hate speech cannot pass and cannot take place. Hannah Arendt said that discrimination is the weapon that kills without blood, and hate speech is a weapon that kills without blood. For this reason, we must increasingly focus on educating and strengthening our youth, go through history and explain that hate speech, whatever it may be – in this case, anti-Semitism – is a return to a space whose memory we do not want to forget, but which we do not want to live again. I therefore leave today the call to this plenary, Commissioner, for the next five years to continue to be five years of combating hate speech, in particular of those who are afraid and hide behind screens and on social media, continuing to pulverize and increase the discourse of division, hate speech and disunity speech. Saving European democracy means continuing to uphold respect for human rights.