Speeches

We condemn any violation of human rights, whether in Thailand, in any EU country, or in any other part of the world. When the situation in Thailand has been largely ignored in recent years by the EP, it is at a time of rapprochement with the People's Republic of China that this resolution emerges, cynically instrumentalising migration and Uyghurs (who have been detained for ten years in Thai detention centres without any previous consideration). The EU has no morals, because of the policies it defends, promotes and implements with regard to migrants and refugees, to dictate judgments on third parties on this issue. We do not monitor and denounce the instrumentalisation of human rights, so that, under its pretext, coercive policies of relationship are promoted or covert and covert operations of foreign interference and policies of confrontation at the international level, which target, in addition to Thailand, the People's Republic of China. The relationship of the EU and its Member States with other countries should be guided by respect for their sovereignty and independence, in compliance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, respecting the right of peoples to decide their fate, free from external interference, promoting peace, and mutually beneficial cooperation.

Madam President, we voted against this report on the investments of the European Investment Bank because we really see the wrong political direction of the action of the European Investment Bank, particularly with the emphasis and priority given to investments in militarisation called 'security and defence'. Furthermore, the over-emphasis on competitiveness, productivity, profits and deregulation of social issues and workers' rights is underlined. This report welcomes the European Investment Bank's decision to extend the eligibility criteria for investments in militarisation by limiting excluded activities. It is an entire chapter dedicated to militarisation, highlighting a set of initiatives embedded in a permanent cross-cutting public policy objective, removing a ceiling for funding militarisation. It also welcomes the strong cooperation with the NATO Innovation Fund. For education, ‑ is limited to projects with a demonstrable cost-benefit ratio, also here commodifying what is social investment. The direction taken by the European Investment Bank and reflected in this report is absolutely contrary to the interests of the peoples and to the development of social cohesion.

Madam President, we have made clear the reasons for our disagreement with this proposal for the next financial framework, and it is not just about the fact that there is a planned cut of 12% in the national envelope of funds for Portugal. But it was also not for lack of alternative that this bad proposal for the next financial framework was approved. In the Committee on Budgets and in this plenary, we have put forward proposals for an alternative path. Of the many proposals we have put forward, we highlight the overall increase in the budget by increasing the national contributions of the ‑ Member States which benefit most from the policies of the European Union. We have proposed cutting appropriations for militarisation and war and channelling these resources towards cohesion, economic and social development, improving the living conditions of peoples, peace and development cooperation. We proposed a budget of €1 162 million for economic and social cohesion, with increased funds for cohesion, agriculture and fisheries policies, keeping the 65 % share in this budget. We proposed that the European Social Fund should have a budget of EUR 198 billion. We proposed EUR 50 billion to finance the anti-poverty strategy and EUR 35 billion to address housing problems, in addition to strengthening environmental programmes such as LIFE or POSEI for the outermost regions. It was not for lack of alternative that this negative proposal was approved for the next financial framework.

Mr President, Commissioner McGrath, we are discussing the report on fundamental rights in the European Union, and fundamental rights are not only political rights, they are also economic, social and cultural rights. The report makes that reference, and that is an important reference. But there is a lot missing from this report for it to be a true report to what happened during 2024 and 2025, within the European Union, in terms of fundamental rights. There is a lack of condemnation of the persecution and repression of citizens who denounce the genocide in Palestine at the hands of Israel's genocidal policy, who have been persecuted, punished, imprisoned and prosecuted for promoting terrorism or other crimes in order to condition and curtail their freedom of expression. We are talking about the rights of workers who, when they exercise their right to strike, sometimes find themselves repressed, or the rights of trade unions that are called into question, with changes to labour law that impose limitations on trade union action. We are talking about an inhumane policy towards migrants, which looks at migrants in an instrumental way, only for the economic benefit that is derived from them. These are also violations of rights.

Mrs de la Pisa Carrión, you criticised the report on the fundamental rights of the European Union and I wanted to ask you some specific questions. Do you believe that fundamental rights are respected when protesters denouncing the genocide in Gaza are repressed at the hands of the Israeli Government? Do you believe that fundamental rights are respected when workers who exercise their right to strike are repressed? You referred to Christian values, so I ask you: do you think that hate speech and discrimination against migrants, against Roma, against other vulnerable groups in society is a Christian value and a fundamental value?

Mr President, Commissioner Ribera, the digital sector is, of course, a sector of great importance and economic impact. Today, it is a liberalised – absolutely liberalised – sector, where there is no public intervention of any kind not only in the conduct of scientific and technological development, but in the fact that the sector is completely dominated by multinationals, in particular US-based ones. They operate exclusively on the basis of the accumulation of profits, scientific and technological development in accordance with the objectives of their profits, without concern for consumers, without concern for economic impacts, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises, without any concern, in some cases, even for human life, as can be seen in the military applications that have been developed and which, in particular, in the Middle East war, have demonstrated their dramatic impacts. What was needed was — more than a regulation of digital markets — one that gave a perspective of meeting social needs and using a sector for the development of peoples and of each country, guaranteeing respect for the rights of citizens and consumers.

Mr Paulo do Nascimento Cabral, cohesion, agriculture and fisheries accounted for 65% of the budget in the current multiannual financial framework. With the Commission's proposal, they now represent only 45%. And now this report raises that slice of the budget a little bit, but it does not even reach 50 %. How can a reduction of this size, in proportion to the budget, defend farmers? And how can farmers be defended with the rules set out in the proposal for the multiannual budget of the European Union concerning the constraint and the dispute between agricultural and non-agricultural funds? We have, in fact, succeeded in ensuring that POSEI is not eliminated, but farmers are not defended by this budget proposal, and it must be fundamentally amended.

Mrs Tinagli, you are also chairman of the Housing Committee and you referred to that. And indeed, it is important that this report has a reference to housing problems. My question to you is, first of all, whether you are satisfied with the fact that this matter is referred to the Regional Development Fund, within the national and regional partnership plans, with all the limitations that this means? What if, on the other hand, the lack of a serious financial commitment to investing in housing is not a cause for concern in order to take seriously the proclamation of objectives that is made in the report on housing issues?

Mr President, Commissioner Serafin, the European Commission's proposal for the next financial framework was a bad starting point. This report is limited to softening some of the negative aspects, but the underlying problems remain ‑se. The political choices in this multiannual budget are the arms race and the militarisation of the European Union, the contempt for cohesion and the fight against economic, social and territorial asymmetries, the concentration of powers in the European Commission to use the funds as instruments of blackmail on the ‑ Member States, new own resources of the European Union withdrawing national budgetary resources. Too much money for weapons and war, too little money for homes, hospitals, schools, culture, fighting poverty or responding to environmental challenges. For large economic and multinational groups, a full safe and endless facilities; for farmers, fishermen, small and medium-sized enterprises, only pierced pennies. Simplifying is a verb that the European Commission can only combine in the first person to strengthen its powers of control over the budget, not to simplify access to Multiannual Financial Framework funds for final beneficiaries. Cohesion, agriculture and fisheries lose money and lose relative weight in the budget. Financing for science, technology, industrial production, investment in railroads, ports, airports, only if they are also found to have a military use that can be useful. To solve people's problems and develop the ‑ Member States, there is no openness. And there will not be a penny that is given to a state or a region that is not directly controlled by the all-powerful European Commission and is not dependent on its guidelines and demands, notably through the specific recommendations of the European Semester, which is like saying: You want funds, comply with the orders we give you with the so-called reform recommendations. What is expected is not only a wrong distribution of European funds according to the objectives for which they may be intended. What is also under way is a more unfair distribution of these funds, harming the least developed countries and benefiting those who are at the forefront of economic, social, scientific and technological development and also of the political control of the institutions of the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner Albuquerque, this debate is a good example of the European Union's policies and the interests it serves. The European Union promotes wage restraint, increases the cost of living, pushes workers into debt and then goes on to say that people need to be informed about the risks of credit and the precautions they have to take when in debt. The European Union promotes the financialization of the economy, accepts the issuance of bitcoins and other spurious forms of currency issuance without central bank control, tolerates the speculative schemes made in this way, but then goes on to say that consumers need to be alerted to the risks of speculative financial adventures. In the name of the free movement of capital, it has liberalised markets, deregulated the financial sector, put bank savings and pensions at risk, and then goes on to say that workers and savers need to be enlightened and informed. Commissioner Albuquerque, when the peoples have all the financial literacy to which they are entitled, what they are going to do is run with your policies.

Mr President, Commissioner Lahbib, in our opinion, criminal laws should be reserved for sovereign national competence and no state should wait for the European Union to strengthen and make more effective its laws to combat sexual abuse, including rape. International legal and judicial cooperation in this area is essential, but we have many doubts that there is an advantage in uniform impositions, disconnected from the national reality, laws and judicial practice of each country. Portugal has transposed the Istanbul Convention and adapted its criminal law without waiting for the European Union. Amendments to criminal laws have been important steps towards a more effective law to combat sexual abuse, including rape, but also criminal investigation and courts have made a significant contribution. Portuguese law does not explicitly use the concept of affirmative consent, but states that consent cannot be presumed and that silence or absence of resistance does not amount to consent. The courts have moved to focus the assessment on the existence of a free and voluntary agreement...

Mr Buxadé Villalba, the first question I want to ask you is this: Are you only concerned about violations that are committed by foreigners? Because if they are committed by the nationalists there is no longer any problem for the extreme ‑ right? Question 2: You advocate increasing sentences when there are convictions, but you do not want to tamper with laws that presume consent whenever there is no resistance from the victim or there is no expression of that consent. What is the point of increases in penalties, if the law can never be adequate to ensure that there is a conviction in the case where there is even an offense and there is a culprit? What do you want to do, after all? Is it just propaganda or do you want to take any action that is effective in combating sexual abuse?

Madam President, I am using Rule 163.º to express our displeasure at the fact that the European Parliament continues to reject a debate that has at its heart the defence of workers' rights, the improvement of their working and living conditions as factors of economic and social development, particularly at a time when these rights are under attack in several countries of the European Union, with changes to labour legislation, with the deterioration of wages, with the increase in the cost of living. This situation is absolutely critical and urgent. Session after session, there seems to be general agreement that this is an absolutely essential issue. The fact is, however, that there is never room on the agenda for the European Parliament to have this in-depth debate on a policy that is absolutely urgent to enhance the living and working conditions of workers throughout the European Union. We will insist again until such a debate is held, because we have not given up the defence of workers' rights as an absolutely essential and indispensable criterion for progress and development.