Speeches

Mr President, Madam Executive Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, today I want to talk about the history of a continent. A continent that, after centuries of conflict, has decided to put an end to war and to establish, through shared sovereignty and cooperation, a future of peace. That continent is Europe and that project is the European Union. It is for him, for his past and for his peoples that we cannot accept any setback in our sovereignty, whatever the cost. The European Union is a free and democratic space, one of the few in the world. And in democracy we respond to the will of the people and the people, not some elites. When Donald Trump blocks a global agreement between more than 130 countries to tax digital giants, he puts the interest of the most privileged ahead of the interest of peoples and nations. And when we choose to give in and give up multilateralism, we give up Europeans and give up all these young people who are watching this debate today. This is a new system of a new world, where geopolitical competition overlaps with international cooperation, and so we must learn from the mistakes of the past and reduce external dependencies, from technology to defence. Yes, we need to uphold our rules, but we need to think much further. We need more European industry, innovative factories, advanced and ethical data centres. Clean and affordable energy. If Europeans want to have a voice and weight in the future, the solution is not to retreat cowardly to nationalism, but to bet on cooperation and autonomy as the basis of the strength of the whole continent.

Colleague, thank you very much for accepting – my two questions are very simple, because you brought here the question of hate speech. So I just want to ask you very clearly: if a minor is attacked on social media and the rest because of how he or she looks, isn't that hate speech? If, for example, a person from a minority is attacked because of her or his ethnicity, isn't that hate speech? Because remember one thing, free speech is not the same thing as having no rule of law in Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, big tech companies are not paying their fair share of taxes today. And we know that this is no longer a controversial stance, only a fact. All evidence points to workers and small businesses paying higher rates than Meta, Amazon and other digital giants. Unfortunately, when we were close to an international deal with more than 130 countries, President Trump stepped in to protect the interests of his corporate friends. With the threat of tariffs and other retaliation, this US administration is now trying to prevent us from reaching a European solution, and it is very curious that the far right that claims to be sovereigntist didn't even show up to the debate today. But colleagues, this is not the time to backtrack. The debate today is not only about tax justice, but also about our sovereignty. We must remain and stand united and remind everyone that the EU remains a democracy. The question is therefore simple. Are you siding with the President Trump and forfeiting the mandate given by your citizens, by our citizens, to legislate on their behalf, or are you ready to stand for our values and to ensure that big tech cannot avoid their fair share of taxes and their fair share of responsibilities? We chose the second option. The S&D Group chose tax justice and, more importantly, we choose democracy.

(start of intervention with microphone off) ... accompany you in your requests, in your demands, for the benefit of national destinations. But this year, about 2.35% of our national territory burned in Portugal. It is more than 200 000 hectares, well above twice the average of the last ten years. Let me ask you a question that worries the Portuguese and that certainly worries me: why has the Government of Portugal decided successively to postpone the request for support from the European Civil Protection Mechanism? Because the image that passes is of a government that was more concerned with television coverage of a party event than with saving the country on time.

Mr Cotrim de Figueiredo, I believe that we agree on the essential points: that the European Union must negotiate with the United States, that our relationship must be positive, but that this relationship cannot be achieved at any cost. And that is why, allow me, I would like to ask you about your position on the taxation of the big tech companies currently operating in the European Union. We know that these corporations pay far lower fees and taxes than our small and medium-sized enterprises, taxes that are essential to finance more spending, as we advocate, safely and avoiding taxes on citizens. Are liberals on the side of Trump's budget bomb or on the side of European consumers?

Mr Cotrim de Figueiredo, I believe that we agree on the essential points: that the European Union must negotiate with the United States, that our relationship must be positive, but that this relationship cannot be achieved at any cost. And that is why, allow me, I would like to ask you about your position on the taxation of the big tech companies currently operating in the European Union. We know that these corporations pay far lower fees and taxes than our small and medium-sized enterprises, taxes that are essential to finance more spending, as we advocate, safely and avoiding taxes on citizens. Are liberals on the side of Trump's budget bomb or on the side of European consumers?

If I could respond with a sale, I would say that this intervention comes from a deeply Europeanist party, concerned about Europe and the way European funds are allocated to our country. That's not the case. And so I will respond by being a deeply Europeanist party, a party that created, in Portugal, the Foundation for Science and Technology, a party that deepened European integration also in knowledge, and that already in the last legislature – not in the last legislature of the AD government, but of the Socialist Party government – created clusters in Portugal that not only allowed access to more funds, but allowed access to more funds between Portuguese companies and universities. And so that skeptical view of Europe is something that characterizes the bench from which the honourable Member comes, but it is not something that is reflected in the public data, which shows us that today we have more qualified people, more innovation – and much more than we had before European integration.

Dear President, Dear President, Dear President, Dear President, Dear President, Dear President, Dear President,, the future of European industry and competitiveness is not built on low wages or unrestricted deregulation; It is built with a strategy for innovation, a strategy that we lacked. The initiative Chose Europe, now presented, adds €500 million, making it possible to value our qualified young people and new research centres. But the increase in funding also opens the door to recruiting the best scientists who are no longer in Europe. I am talking about those who, in the United States and other countries, have suffered cuts in support of their work and who feel the science threatened by those who in Gaza threaten children, but who in the world threaten the truth. This is a unique opportunity to reinvent Europe as the leader of a new era of knowledge in decarbonisation, artificial intelligence or health biotechnologies. But let's be clear, the future won't wait for us. And that is why, more than it is important to present, it is urgent to do. This must be sufficient reason for the Old Continent to be once again the most enlightened.

Don't miss it so much, honourable Member. It's like that again and it's like that for you. His party says it wants a reflection on a two-state solution. You say you want to negotiate, but you refuse to recognize one of them, Palestine. But what's more, he says he doesn't recognize Palestine because he understands that there, in Palestine, are no free citizens. And therefore, if I acknowledge that the honourable Member is so outraged by the deaths in Palestine, by the damage to Israel and the Palestinians, what I ask him is whether he is able to recognise that the lack of freedom of these Palestinian citizens is precisely because of Israeli invasions such as are still happening today.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 28 April is remembered as the day when the Iberian Peninsula went dark and our fragility was exposed. In Civil Protection, the Portuguese government spoke late and did not provide security. He left the Portuguese to their fate and resigned from the required leadership. Louis Montenegro failed. And if Louis Montenegro was unable to lead a 12-hour blackout, hiding from the problems, imagine what it would be like in a scenario of a new war or a pandemic. Further to the right, while populists rushed to attack the right bet on renewables, central to our sovereignty and, by the way, to our independence from the homeland, information began to enter our homes and deny their theses. The truth, colleagues, is that in energy resilience we have had the bill for the little investment in the modernisation of networks and the lack of interconnections with the rest of the continent that makes us an energy island. It is when extremists take advantage of the blackout and those who fail to protect the people hide in the darkness that we most need light in Europe.

The honourable Member said that this blackout was planned. I think that the honourable Member, if he is not Messiah, is at least the only enlightened Portuguese. But let's go a little further. Clarified as you are, there was a Member of Parliament who, in the dark in the Assembly of the Republic, being from his party, said that the big problem was that we had shut down coal-fired power stations. Now, we came to realize that this was not only a lack of truth, it was to take advantage of the blackout to, while the prime minister was hiding, try to deceive the Portuguese. It would be much clearer if you came here to say that we need more interconnections, because if you do not, you only show that you understand very little about electricity, as you do very little about energy policies.

Dear Member, as you will understand and as you can read, not only in this Commission's programme, but from what our Group has brought here, you can see that employment contracts are always guaranteed when there is wealth creation. What we cannot tolerate, what we cannot accept, is that the relocation of jobs, which – yes – affects a large part of the workers of the European Union, millions of workers, is embodied and from investment that is made outside the Union. That's why we're talking about innovation, that's why we're talking about interconnections, cheaper energy, but that's why we're also talking about investment in sustainable energy. Contrary to what the blocs on our right say, relying on other nations hostile to the Union is not good either for workers or for our countries.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the loss of European competitiveness is unfortunately nothing new. After decades of underinvestment in innovation and a bet on cheap imports, the results are in sight and 850 000 jobs in industry have disappeared in the last four years alone. These are not numbers, they are lives. Many people for whom work has ceased to be a source of stability and has become a battle and an uncertainty. So when we talk about recovering industrial strength, as it is well presented, we talk about restoring hope and freedom through decent employment and fair wages to those left behind. And this must start with a strong bet on safe, cheap and sustainable energy. Reducing exposure to blocks hostile to the Union, increasing our renewable production and ensuring interdependence between our Member States are the first steps towards the industrial success of the world’s largest single market. Our well-being and our freedom depend on our courage and our responsibility.

Madam President, dear President-in-Office of the Council, dear Commissioner, in times of fear, let us hope. And on the Council's conclusions, I have to say that since the arrival of Donald Trump, the word we have heard the most has been the word crisis. And had the Greeks known that the word crisis — krisis — would be employed with more will to danger and with less hope of will, perhaps they would not have employed it in the same way. And it's about this optimism, which I don't know if it's annoying or not, that we should look to the future. The future of the European Union is a future of unity when we talk about the market for prosperity. The future of the European Union is not that of the war industry, nor of defence, it is that of the peace industry, because it alone saves the peoples and gives them security. But it is also a future of realism. And here, in the few lines we find from the Council for prosperity, but also for sustainability, we need to ensure that a fairer world is one in which those who can most also contribute their own resources so that the Union can develop. Finishing with Thomas Jefferson, I must say: Times change, constitutions must change with them. What cannot change is our way of looking at the will of the peoples and moving forward with it.

Dear Member, as I mentioned in my speech – and you also mention it well – the most important thing at the moment is to reduce the price for families, for small and medium-sized enterprises, for those who need it. This obviously means looking at the price formation mechanism, understanding it and redesigning it. And that is why I am delighted that this Commission, for the first time, is facing this challenge and says, not only for the future, but also for the present, that the Member States also have a responsibility to design mechanisms that can already foresee this. Look at our case in Portugal: it is the responsibility of the Portuguese Government to start designing these mechanisms, this decoupling mechanism. It is not acceptable that in a country where renewable production is so high, prices continue as they are. And so that's a good measure, that's a good proposal.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, investing in renewable energy production is not an ideological issue: it is the right bet for a Europe that wants more strategic autonomy, a favourable price path and less polluting emissions. We know that in the short term, it will be very difficult to compete with energy prices, either from American competitors or from Chinese competitors. We lack endogenous natural resources and dependence on cheap gas from Russia, which is now dying out, has long inhibited investment in alternatives. But this is the way – and the way is right. Commissioner Jørgensen, you will have my full support for your plan for affordable energy. But, as the Draghi report says, there is a way for Europe to already ease electricity prices today. And that's moving towards ending gas price indexation. We count on you for this battle. Energy policy and the climate transition need to deliver results for people and small and medium-sized enterprises, not for large energy companies, nor for speculators in the financial system, whose interests are not European interests.

I've seen that you come from the Sovereignists, and it's very curious that you speak about energy, about energy prices and sovereignty, while at the same time recommending that the Commission still allow Russian gas and Russian oil to come into the European Union, therefore increasing prices, and therefore reducing our sovereignty. So my question to you, colleague, is very simple: what kind of sovereignty are you speaking about? The one that is reducing Ukraine? The one that is reducing Europeans? Or the one that is attacking the families that you claim to protect?

Mr David, thank you very much for your intervention. Every time we hear someone from your political family, you are speaking about families, you are speaking about defending them, and you are truly right about that. But just today, in the plenary, you voted against the European care strategy to defend all types of large families in your vote in the plenary. So, my question is very simple: are these only words or are you really working to defend the working-class people and working-class families?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, five years ago, with the pandemic, it became clear that we cannot rely on China for health goods. We said we'd learn from the mistake. Then, three years ago, it was time to realize that relying on Russia for cheap energy was also a mistake. We said again that we would learn. And today, even though Trump threatens us almost daily, there are those who want to rely more on the United States of America, whether for weapons, energy or digital platforms. If Europe wants less vulnerability, it is now that we must avoid it. The new communications infrastructure, from submarine cables to the 5G network, is key to our autonomy and must be built by Europeans. The creation of new social and information networks is also crucial for our sovereignty. So instead of learning from old mistakes, let us avoid making them.

Mr President, let me begin by saying that there is absolutely nothing in the report that mentions making such a correlation. But we are already accustomed to the false truths or the many lies of your party. Let me bring you a dice. In the year 2023 to 2024, irregular immigration into the European Union decreased by 40%. And since we're talking about data, let's also bring facts. The first, in the last week, in which a member of his party, Rita Matias, decided to call rats to immigrants in Portugal. The second, from a deputy also from his party, who is now accused of stealing, stealing suitcases, by the way, from Portuguese, immigrants and foreigners entering our country. And what I want to ask you very quickly, honourable Member, is whether you can establish the same...

Madam President, I want to evoke today Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure that relates to the respect of fundamental rights. I want to evoke it on the Article 11 that states the right for everyone to receive information without interference, regardless of frontiers. Today, censorship has started on Meta. I invite all Members here in the House to search for the hashtag #Democrat on Instagram or Facebook and to see the 0 results that are displayed due – imagine – to alleged sensitive content. Yet, if you search for the hashtag #Republican or the hashtag #WhiteSupremacy, there are millions of results. For the far right, democracy is sensitive. For us, proud Europeans, democracy is fundamental.

I've seen your posts on the internet and you seem someone that is often speaking about freedom. You are very worried about freedom. You are worried about the content that is being lectured in schools. When it comes to gender, you are worried about sexual and reproductive rights. You are worried about lecturing social rights in school. But you are not very worried when it comes to the internet or to the algorithm spreading lies to our children. So, my question is very simple: are you worried about science, or are you much more worried about the lies that are being spread by the algorithms that you protect on X and on Meta?

Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, Temirlan Sultanbekov is a young political activist in Kyrgyzstan. And he is not only a young political activist, he is one of the most brilliant democrats in his country. Last month, he was unfairly detained and denied these rights in an attempt to prevent him from standing in the next elections. This is not the first time that this administration has sought to silence the opposition and, in the face of such actions, the European Union cannot stay quiet nor tolerate violations of democratic values. We must speak loud and clear. Intimidation campaigns have to stop, all arbitrary arrests must cease, and the respective politicians, journalists and activists must be released. That is what we owe to Temirlan and to all the young political activists. Not just our solidarity, but our commitment to end this situation and to ensure that the authorities in Kyrgyzstan correct their course by respecting freedom and democracy. That is what we stand for here in the European Parliament, and that is what the European Union is all about.

Honourable Member, you are not advocating freedom here, you are advocating the victim, in which the victim is your constituents, you are the Honourable Member and you are your political group. Now the freedom that speaks so much is the freedom for intolerance, is the freedom for hatred, is the freedom for false accounts. As I understand that the Honourable Member does not understand the language of freedom of Soares and so many others, I will speak in his language, in the language of security and in the language of families. I think the Honourable Member acknowledges that families, when they do not let children leave the house with strangers, do so for safety. So why should they do so on social media, when there are 25 000 accounts, as in the Romanian elections, which appear ten days earlier? Why should they do it for the tolerance of hatred? And why should they do it when all TikTok users don't tolerate more than their own?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, before the financial crisis, the GDP of the euro area was comparable to that of the United States. Today, it's only about 60%. In the face of this economic anemia, the answer cannot and should not be more of the same. We need a European Competitiveness Fund that promotes our industry and skilled employment. But we must also mobilise private investment, creating better conditions for our ecosystem to thrive. startups innovative, by making Europe a desirable destination for venture capital. We want investment in productive sectors with innovative potential, yes. But this exercise of attracting foreign investment cannot be done in a hurry, without discretion. We must not fuel speculation, as so often happens in the case of housing. Nor can we deplete our strategic autonomy by selling public assets in strategic sectors to third countries. By respecting these principles, avoiding the mistakes of the past, we have all the conditions to build a more dynamic, fair and secure European capital market.