Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is the third resolution on Venezuela that we have discussed in this parliamentary term. I hope it will be the one with the most support. When negotiating ‑la, it was clear that there is a majority that coincides on three points: human rights and international law must be respected; the 470 political prisoners must be released and the future of Venezuelans must be decided by Venezuelans alone. In a moment of transition like this, it is natural to make mistakes, advances and setbacks, false steps. When the leader of the Portuguese Socialist Party traveled to Venezuela, he certainly made ‑lo with the best intentions. Two days later, the regime promoted the head of the secret police, suspected of crimes against humanity, the defense minister. The same can be said of the Spanish Prime Minister, who invited the President of Venezuela to the Ibero‑ American Summit, when it is still under sanctions and prevented from entering European space. With respect, let me say: To a democracy with a transition as noble as the Spanish one, ‑se demanded more about a democratic transition that is not his. Madam Commissioner, tonight we urge the Commission not to repeat these mistakes. When the High Representative defended lifting the sanctions on Delcy Rodríguez, there was an amnesty law and the promise to release political prisoners. Five days ago, President Rodriguez unilaterally revoked that law. Therefore, to those who see legitimacy in the Venezuelan National Assembly, I ask: Why has the Assembly not been consulted on a law that derives from it? And to those who are so critical of the transactional way of looking at foreign policy, I ask: Isn't it transactional to ask for democracy from those who prevented it for 12 years by easing ‑'s sanctions? Even about the amnesty, which lasted three months, I ask: What justice is this in which, in order to be free, one cannot make use of freedom? I ask myself and I ask you if there is freedom when someone has to plead guilty to being free. I don't think so. And I do not think this Parliament either.

Mr President, Commissioner Kos, it is symbolic that we should present the proposal for enhanced cooperation with Canada, not to the foreign policy holder, not to the Commissioner for Partnership or Trade, but to the Commissioner for Enlargement. In the future, our relationship with Canada will not be the same as we have with the accession countries, but it will be closer and closer. Let's look at the trade agreement: more than €3 billion contribution to European GDP. Approximately 1.3 billion for Canadian GDP. We both benefited from more predictability for businesses and more supply for consumers. In the age of protectionism, Europe and Canada have shown that free trade works and can work for everyone. Ten of our Member States are late in ratifying this agreement and there is no reason to do so. Let's look at the defense. After the 2025 summit, Canada became the first non-European nation to join the SAFE programme, through which we will build an industrial base to defend Europe. Having an Atlantic power in the development of our capabilities is a sign of strength when the balances within NATO are not what they once were. Mr President, Canadian lives have advocated peace in the Middle East, joining the international coalition against Daesh. They have advocated the sovereignty of our continent with more than EUR 23 billion to help Ukraine, and they defend European soil today, leading NATO operations in Latvia, showing our threats that Baltic countries may be small in territory but strong in their resilience against the Russian threat. Today, Canada is bound, as said, the more European of non‑European powers and receiving the most Atlantic of the American nations in this moment of time. Their main pragmatism points away; Pointless proclamation doesn't like Canada, our Union has no common language, no common ethnicity, and no common religion. Their strength is their civility and their capacity of uniting when history demands them to. Today we also face that demand. Tomorrow we ask the Commission: Let's face it together.

Madam President, Madam High Representative, this was the first parliament in the world to recognize the victory of the Venezuelan democratic movement. We did it in 2024, against critics and non-believers. We did it mainly because we had to. We owed it to the eight million Venezuelans who have left their country in 12 years. We owed it to the 12 million Venezuelans who voted against fear, against oppression, against dictatorship. We owed it to more than 1,600 political prisoners to date for release. We owed it to María Corina Machado, who, in hiding, never gave up on her people. We owed it to the President-elect, Edmundo González, whom this Parliament received in good time. For us, it was already clear that the future of Venezuelans belongs only to Venezuelans, that their destiny is and can only be democracy. We did not remember Venezuela on January 3 and we did not forget Venezuela after January 3. Madam Vice-President, I congratulate you on your position. We may disagree on how Nicolás Maduro was removed from Venezuelan soil, but we do not deny a fact: Venezuela is better off without him. What we cannot allow is that its fall is limited to a change of face and not a change of direction. If two years ago we condemned here those who usurped elections, today we have an obligation to defend those who won them. Venezuela is not oil, it is not gold and it is not a protectorate. Venezuela has been waiting too long for freedom. Don't wait for her anymore.

Madam President, for those who see the world as a zero-sum game, the growth of others is always a defeat. That is why some people prefer a nationalist Europe or nationalisms. A nationalistic Europe would not complete the Capital Markets Union or the banking union. A nationalist Europe would leave the monopoly of the future on the other side of the Atlantic. The question is not 'why have our allies changed?', it is 'what will we do now?' And that question is answered with the simplest question of all: What does it mean to be European today? What it is to be a European today. To be a European is to be a socialist and applaud the Nobel Peace Prize, like the President of the Council did, is to come from the smallest Member State and to represent all the Parliament like our President does, is to be a German and hold the Netanyahu Government accountable, like the President of the Commission did. To be a European is to do the opposite of what everyone is expecting, but what everyone must be done, is to be a cohesion country and to have combativity as a priority. To be a European is to defend a border even when we're not sharing it, is to defend free elections even when we're not voting, is to defend a just peace even when we're not in the fighting. To be a European is to do the right thing when no one else will. In 2026, may we be more European.

Mr President, colleagues, a Portuguese poet once said, 'I know not what tomorrow will bring'. Today we may not know what tomorrow will bring, but we know this: a true peace strengthens the invaded, not the invader. After four years of fighting, Ukraine has the right to keep what they fought so hard to defend and to recover what Russia took by force. After four years of fighting, we cannot tell the Ukrainians that Russia's war crimes will end with a Russian peace – they will not. If geography is not enough for us to see it, history should be. And in their history, every time Ukraine has agreed on disarmament, their sovereignty was compromised. Fellow Members, a peace deal that disarms Ukraine will only empower Putin. If we have no Ukraine in NATO, and no NATO in Ukraine, we will have Russia in Europe. We may not know what tomorrow will bring, but we know this: to defend Ukraine is not only to defend democracy and international law. To defend Ukraine is to defend Estonian schools, Lithuanian hospitals, Polish homes and Finnish families. To defend Ukraine is to defend Europe. And nothing can be achieved – no Draghi report, no common markets, no secured borders – if we give in to Moscow. Europe must be willing to talk, but not to yield. We are eager for peace, as long as it does not mean more war. We may not know what tomorrow will bring, but we must be ready for it.

Mr President, Commissioner Kos, this is the first time in this parliamentary term that Parliament has taken the initiative on enlargement. It is a sign that we are doing this starting by talking about what we have to change as a Union and not just what those who want to be part of it have to change. The debate on the accession of new Member States boils down to two issues: whether it is going to happen and whether it should happen. Our response, as a party, is clear: Yes to both. Enlargement will not only happen, it is already happening today, and it will not only strengthen the European Union in the future, but it is already a key contribution to our development. In security, when we have deepened the gradual integration of the candidate countries, it is not only the candidate countries that are safer, it is the Union as a whole that is less vulnerable. It is no coincidence that we have included them in the White Paper on defence and in the internal security strategy. More enlargement is also more security. When we integrate the accession countries into the internal market, it is not only their economy that gains opportunities, it is the Union as a whole that gains competitiveness. More enlargement is also more economic. Madam Commissioner, in our journey towards an ever-closer Union, the courage to reform, including – not involving – is adamant. In the last year, few have done it with such grace and commitment as you did. At the beginning of this term, integration required 150 photographic decisions. If we want enlargement to be taken seriously by our partners, we need to do something about it within ourselves. In 2029, accredited an Enlargement Commissioner, we can also have an enlarged Europe and a stronger one, too. For those who have reached the candidate countries, it is clear today: for them, enlargement is no more than an act of faith. They believed in it, but they don't think they'll ever see it. Tomorrow, we also vote on that, on showing every European that, yes, they can be citizens of this Union, too.

Madam President, Commissioner, recognising the fragility of the ceasefire does not negate the need for peace. And admitting the difficulty of peace does not deny Israel's right to exist, nor the right of the Palestinian people to more than survive. This plan is not a victory, but an advance, led by those who can make themselves heard, but enhanced by those who have never given up seeing. Respect for Palestine's self-determination and for the role of the United Nations is in this plan. It would not be without the New York Declaration, adopted in September at the UN General Assembly, and the multilateralism that engaged in the Franco-Saudi conference. Europe was founded on the value of life. In Gaza, in the last two years, that value has not existed. It must be possible to say this about the hostages, imprisoned and murdered, as well as about the Palestinians, months on end, without supplies and medicines. It must be possible to defend Israel's right to exist without being complicit in genocide, just as it must be possible to condemn what happened in Gaza without being sympathetic to terrorism. Ladies and gentlemen, if it is not possible in this Parliament, in this Europe, it will not be possible anywhere else.

Madam President, my Polish friends, an attack on Poland's airspace is an attack on this European Union. When Russia crosses your border, they are assaulting each and every one of us, from Warsaw to Lisbon. There is a reason why those drones flew, but didn't shoot. They knew they would strike more than a building: they would strike the 27 democracies of this Union, the 32 armies of our common alliance and the resilience of the Polish people. Our Parliament may not be under Polish skies, but we have the obligation to defend our European soil wherever it may be. After Georgia, after Crimea, after Ukraine, we need to learn our lesson: there's no worse escalation than to let Putin act without a response. Today, to invest in defence is the ultimate form of European solidarity. Today, Poland needs more than words and we ought to give it to them. For far too long, we have left eastern Europe and the Baltic alone against Russia: not anymore.

I can only interpret your question as a question that was addressed to the European Commission and not to a Member. For a very simple reason: as the honourable Member knows, the government of my coalition supports the suspension of that agreement in any decision that is taken in the Council, following the Commission's assessment. The honourable Member tells me: How much longer do we have to wait for this assessment? From my point of view, we've waited too long.

Madam President, in December the European Commission's envoy for peace in the Middle East told us: “We cannot be surprised if we see an increase in terrorism in the coming years.” Europol’s annual report confirmed: the images of death and destruction in Gaza impact the security of the European Union, with support already going beyond al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Madam President, even if Europe does not look to the Middle East, the Middle East looks to Europe. The tragedy in Gaza is a reality for those in Gaza and a risk for those who ignore it. The partnership agreement between Israel and the European Union includes respect for human rights as an essential element. Civilians killed near humanitarian aid centres call this agreement into question. It is therefore crucial for the European Commission to support an external and independent monitoring mission, which assesses the responsibilities of these deaths in the event of war crimes. In a territory closed to observers and journalists, any assessment of any agreement will be incomplete. Let's do it in time.

Mr President, a week ago, Spain and Portugal celebrated their accession to the European project. It is fair to say that this anniversary would not exist without the two popular parties and the two socialist parties that founded our democracies. On a path with differences, but very much in common, there is a brand that brings us closer and distinguishes our European belonging, our internationalism, our concern not only with us, but with those around us. In the democratic crisis in Spain, this is what is at stake. A government whose Amnesty Law has been declared illegal by the European Commission. A prime minister who refuses elections for denying their future outcome. A government that describes judges as members of the opposition and appoints ministers to the State Attorney General's Office. All this is no longer just a threat to Spanish democracy, it is a tragedy within the European Union, which has as its first criterion, for those who want to be part of it, compliance with the rule of law. It is an attack on the nature of this Union and, above all, on the example that its States must set outside. Mr President, when a governing party fails European Spain, it is not Spain that is too much in Europe, it is the party that is too much in government. Citing a recent letter: We face a moral demolition operation with danger to democracy. The author of the letter is the author of the demolition.

Madam President, Commissioner, the NATO summit at the end of the month will reveal two things: the ability of the Alliance to withstand a new reality and the ability of its members to meet agreed goals. As a European, I believe we will correspond to both. As a Portuguese, coming from the Member State furthest from the war, I reaffirm here the commitment of a government that will meet the 2% of defence investment by the end of the year and that will not abdicate to comply with what was agreed at this summit. Madam President, it is becoming increasingly clear today that defence investment is the most urgent form of European solidarity. Those who have a welfare state as a priority know that there will be no public services without defense. Those who have growth as a priority realize that there will be no economy without defense. Those who have borders as a priority should understand: There will be no internal security without defense. Today, there are European doctors who study medicine not with gowns, but with bulletproof vests. There are hospital units built not on our streets, but under our floors. The choice is therefore simple: Either we invest together, or we fail one by one. Let's do it together.

Madam President, dear loved onesIsrael blocked the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza for two months. The people are starving." This is not an activist statement, it is a declaration signed by 17 Member States of this Union, including mine. We oppose Israel's military expansion. The suffering in Gaza is intolerable." This is not an activist statement, it is a statement signed by Canada, the UK and France. From the International Criminal Court to the International Court of Justice, legal – I stress legal – appeals to the international community are impossible to ignore and 53,000 lives lost force us to take it on. Israel has the right to defend itself, but it has no right to respond to terror with horror. As a Democrat, as a European and as a Christian, I quote the newly elected Leo XIV: The price of this war is paid every day for children, for the sick, for the elderly. May our silence, which did not and cannot exist in the face of the victims of Hamas, not help to pay that price. Let us not forget that the answer we give today is what we can give our children when they ask us: Dad, what did you do when that happened?

The blue card is usually used in a confrontational way. Allow me to interact with Mr Francisco Assis and his speech to say the following: I find it remarkable that a centre-left socialist MP dedicates his intervention on the anniversary of peace and the end of World War II to honouring a man who founded a party from the centre opposite his centre, General De Gaulle. This is the lesson that Francis Assisi, who was already in public life the year I was born, has left to this Parliament today. Therefore, I bow in gratitude for his example and for knowing and letting know that there is a great difference between those who celebrate the end of the war on May 8 and those who celebrate on May 9. Those who celebrate on May 8 are in the center. Those who celebrate on the 9th are at the extremes. Thank you for being at the center with us.

Madam President, in the history books, the post-war world means not just the world after the war, but a world without it. Today, 80 years after the surrender of the Nazi regime, we live in a world that faces a darkness most of us can't recall. 50 million lives in six years made us say 'never again'. The Second World War confronted mankind with humanity, patriotism with fascism, truth with anger. The Great War was brought to an end with peace, with a hard lesson. Those who chose to resist forgave those who refuse to forget. And that, dear colleagues, is the founding principle of our Union. That those who weld against invasion are here bounded together with those who commit, never to commit it again. That those who said we shall never surrender are here side by side with those who say, we shall always remember. The Ukrainian people know as we know, that the courage to carry on is the same courage not to let history be rewritten. And we are to keep that in our minds that their fight was once our fight. That their freedom is also our freedom. That their victory will be our peace. They may not be our fathers or our sons, but they are our brothers, our brothers in arms and in rights, our brothers in their hope and in their defiance. In this world, in this war, we may be lonely but never alone. 80 years ago we too faced that loneliness and defeated a great evil on this VE Day. Today it's the survival of freedom, of democracy now and then at stake in our continent. So today, from this time and place, let it be known that victory for Europe Day stands not only for the victory that once was, but also for the victory that must be. Let it be known that the torch of history lights this common cause, that the words VE Day will also, and soon enough mean, Slava Ukraini.

Mr President, the lack of funding for US foreign aid has caused 1 300 000 displaced persons in Ukraine to lose shelter, 2 700 000 war-wounded persons to lose medical assistance. There are 4 million Ukrainians in 90 days. In Africa, half of Sudan's population depended on USAID-sourced food programs. Today, 25 million people are hungry. This Parliament may criticise, ignore or applaud the cuts in US foreign aid, but let us not be mistaken, ladies and gentlemen. These cuts will affect the priorities of all of us, from security to agriculture, from borders to health. The non-funding of Radio Free Europe does not cost lives, but impacts us as Europeans. It is part of our history and the lives of some of us sitting here, who behind the Iron Curtain saw their grandparents tune into that frequency in search of a hope that came in the form of sound. The pen is stronger than the sword, it is often said, but sound is not a less powerful weapon. It is no coincidence that those who want us more vulnerable in our future also want us less aware of our past. A Europe with memory is a Europe that does not forget what it has already overtaken. Mr President, I do not doubt for a second that my generation will also be able to do so, recalling the words of those who once said: 'We shall pay any price, bear any burden, support any friend, oppose any foe for the success and survival of liberty, and for Radio Liberty, too'.

Madam President, Mr President, three years ago, no one anticipated that Europe would unite around Ukraine, denying the invasion of the Russian Federation. Three years later, American instability causes many to say that Europe does not exist, that it does not count, that it cannot. Ladies and gentlemen, over the last hundred days, the three institutions gathered here have shown that Europe is here. To the threat of tariffs we respond in the day, defending our economy. To the threat of sanctions relief we responded this week with the 16th package of sanctions. We respond to the suspension of support for Ukraine at the moment, not giving up Ukrainian freedom, its constitution, its sovereignty. The Union has proved that it is possible to react without provoking, to act without giving up. We do it not to invade anyone, but to prevent further invasions. We do this not out of economic opportunity, but out of necessity, because there is no poverty more devastating than the poverty of war. Friends, I am Portuguese. I was born in a most distant Member State from this war. So I say to my Polish friends: I know your security is our security. I say to my Romanian friends: I know your democracy is our democracy. I say to my Baltic friends: your defence cannot just be our defence. To our Ukrainian friends, I say: your freedom is our freedom. Today it is increasingly clear that a common response is the only fair response, that to invest in defence is the most urgent response in solidarity. Let's not waste time. Let's do it.

Madam President, Commissioner, the title of this debate asks 'cooperation or tariffs?' when the largest economy on the planet waves tariffs, not in an environment of cooperation, but of intimidation. For a union of states and for any company, more harmful than a tariff is the threat of tariffs. This is an unpredictability that is not only economic, ranging from diplomacy to the labor market, from purchasing power to the power of force. Look at tariffs as quid pro quoBy announcing them one day and suspending them the next, it damages the relationship between rulers, but also the capital of those who invest and the salary of those who work. For a social market economy such as ours, a tariff is a tax; For those on the other side of the Atlantic, a tariff is now a sanction for their allies. For four years, we may not know what we're counting on, but after four years, our partners will know who they can count on. With a Europe that negotiates but is not blackmailed, with a Europe that is an interlocutor but does not give up the market, an international order with rules and responsibility.

Mr President, Commissioner, I have seen it. I saw them on the plane to Caracas before last year's presidential election. I saw the Venezuelan families who had to flee the country come back to vote. I saw how they held their hands on that plane and cried out of fear. Not fear of repression, not fear of intimidation, but fear that your vote wouldn't count. I saw them, I saw them as I saw Maria Corina Machado, week after week with different walls behind her, in each video call, changing locations to avoid being captured. I saw them as I saw the Carter Center, an independent election observer, certifying the president-elect's victory. I saw them as I saw the then High Representative take over in October: Yes, Maduro has lost; The opposition candidate won. I saw them as I saw this Parliament rise to applaud Edmundo González and the democratic forces of Venezuela on the day they received the Sakharov Prize. I have seen them, as I have seen the G7 countries and the European Commission recognize that the Democrats have won, but that democracy has not yet won in Venezuela. I saw it, as this Parliament saw it. This Thursday, let's not forget what we saw.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the face of an American administration which understands only the logic of force, the European Union does not have to be mischaracterised, but it has a clear path: Strengthen yourself. The stronger our economy, with the Capital Markets Union and Banking Union completed, the stronger we will be at the table of this transatlantic relationship. The stronger our defence union, with the strategic compass being implemented and our security ensured, the more strength we will have within the Atlantic Alliance. The stronger our democracies are, with zero tolerance for external, digital or military interference, the more force we will have when we negotiate and seek peace. The United States of America will always be at the table of these negotiations. The question is where, what force will this Union have sitting at that same table? The transatlantic relationship may be more transactional in the economy, in energy, even in the military, but neither international law nor respect for election results are tradable for this Union. It is in this balance, between conviction and pragmatism, that we must preserve this alliance, not forgetting who is in front of us, but, above all, not forgetting ourselves.

The decision of the Israeli Parliament is sovereign and we must live and deal with it, as it says. Ask me how we have to deal with her. First, perceiving it. It is true that UNRWA found seven members of its staff who were related to Hamas and it is true that it had to ban them from that organisation. But I must tell you, honourable Member, with respect, that this Parliament, through the Committee on Foreign Affairs, has written a letter to the Committee on Budgets of the European Union, where it has increased the budget allocation for UNRWA, because the European Union is on the right side. The European Union has increased funding to help those most in need of humanitarian aid in Gaza from a humanitarian point of view. So, honourable Member, my faith remains in this Union, and what I can tell you is that my faith will remain within this Union.

Mr President, if the voices are to be heard, the guns must be silent. This is what happened yesterday in the Gaza Strip. Today, there is still silence and we must use it so that the hostages can be released, and the Palestinian humanitarian disaster can be alleviated as soon as possible. But this is also a silence that forces us to reflect. Fifteen months after the horrendous October attack, the Israeli response was enough to reassure Israel that it will never again experience a situation of the same vulnerability. But we also know, being right-wing or left-wing, that this response has been costly and will have consequences. The popularity of the two-state solution in Israel is at historical lows, and all the diplomacy in the world will be little without that starting point. The tragic and all too often indifferent loss of daily life has opened wounds that have radicalized an entire generation in the Middle East. This is a challenge for peace in the region, but also for security in the rest of the world, including for Europe. This European Union was founded on the value of human life, on the promise never to forget that every life has a unique value, wherever it is, wherever it is born. As a Europeanist, I do not forget our promise of memory of the value of multilateralism and international law, which cannot have a weight for our enemies and a weight for those we have as allies. As long as hatred is not buried, the unforgivable forgiven, and the value of human life recovered, weapons will again raise their voices. Let our voices speak louder!

Mr President, Commissioner, the relationship between the European Union and Azerbaijan dates back to 1996. It is almost 30 years of a cooperative relationship where we agreed 30 years ago that this partnership would be based on two things: democracy and the defence of human rights. Thirty years later, the reality is different. The path taken by the Azerbaijani regime forces us to reject this path, precisely because of the lack of respect for human rights. This House and this resolution demand the release of all political prisoners, human rights defenders and activists, journalists who are being held in inhumane conditions. In Azerbaijan today, the price to pay for freedom is the highest of all, sometimes: life. This is the outcome that many of those fighting for freedom in this country can expect. Despite warnings from the international community, despite warnings from this Parliament, from this Union, the Azerbaijani authorities insist on following the same wrong path. Human rights violations are a kind of new normal that must remain an abnormality for this Parliament, for those who defend rights in the international community. Dr Gubad Ibadoghlu is a well-known opposition figure and one of the finalists for this year’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. He is only one of 300 names – 300 names – who have been tortured and one of 300 human beings persecuted for their convictions. The Parliament that stood up to greet his daughter, who was up there, is the same Parliament that cannot forget the life of his father and the lives of those who fight with him for freedom in Azerbaijan.