Speeches

Madam President, the motto of the Polish Presidency is ‘Security, Europe!". This proclamation conceals an appeal to militarism and war and a policy of privileges for the great economic and financial interests, and contempt for the economic and social problems affecting the peoples. In the programme of this Polish Presidency there is no reference to workers and their rights, and a magnifying glass is needed to find some reference to social issues that are, today, decisive in the lives of peoples. Housing is a sad caricature of that. There are millions of people who cannot find a house they can afford, but in the Polish Presidency's programme the housing problem is referred to only as a statistical problem. In contrast to this contempt for the problems of the peoples, the Polish Presidency insists on the supply of weapons and military equipment to prolong the war in Ukraine, on the increase in military spending in the EU space, on the arms race and on the policy of sanctions, the consequences of which continue to weigh on the living conditions of the peoples. This is not the way to serve the peoples of the European Union.

Madam President, Mr Costa, the conclusions of your first meeting as President of the Council are a cause for concern. Anyone who has raised expectations of his election will certainly be disappointed today to find that, after all, nothing has changed in the policies of the European Union. Concerns about social inequalities only take the place of footnotes. The Council conclusions and your speech today in this debate insist on militarism, war, the arms industry, the diversion of budgetary resources for the production of arms and ammunition. None of this serves the people. None of this corresponds to the needs and priorities of the peoples and none of this contributes to building a better future. So the challenge we leave you with is clear: puts increasing wages and pensions, the right to decent and affordable housing for all, public investment in services to ensure health, education, culture, social protection, high on its agenda. Put on your agenda the priority of putting the brakes on increasing the cost of living and building peace, rather than insisting on war. If you make those choices and put those priorities on your agenda, you will certainly be able to respond effectively to the needs and priorities of the peoples of the European Union.

Mr President, the same staging has been repeated in this European Parliament for more than 20 years. There are more than two decades of interference, destabilisation and economic war against Venezuela, always accompanied by covert and ephemeral ‘democratic enthusiasms’ – in quotation marks. There are many who proclaim democracy, but who were responsible for, complicit in or conniving with the various attempts of coup d'état, of discrediting electoral processes by the fascist far right, of imposing a cruel economic and financial blockade against Venezuela. The conception of democracy that is defended here for Venezuela has had a direct expression in the attack on the Venezuelan Consulate in Lisbon in recent days. The Venezuelan people don't need lessons on what they should do. It needs respect for its sovereign decisions and an end to external interference and aggression. It needs an end to the blockade and the sanctions that have imposed, from the outside, the degradation of living conditions. It is on the side of respect for the Venezuelan people that the democrats must be, and it is on that side that we will continue to be.

Mr Moreira de Sá, you made an intervention here today that brings together Chega, the PS, the PSD, the Liberal Initiative and the CDS, in a chorus against the decisions that the Venezuelan people have been taking for more than 20 years. We realize the inconvenience of the far right with the decisions that the Venezuelan people have taken in the last 20 years. The far right does not conform to the social transformations that Venezuelans are going through and the question I wanted to ask them is whether they do not have a word of respect for the decisions of the Venezuelan people. A word that respects the sovereign decisions that those people have taken, against coups, against blackmail, against the degradation of their living conditions, imposed from the sanctions that are imposed on the Venezuelan people? Is the Honourable Member not able to do an act of contrition in the name of the far right for the damage he has caused to the Venezuelan people?

Mrs Temido, you referred in your speech to two points on which I would like to ask you: security and defence and matters relating to international organisations. One of the first news of Donald Trump's decisions is precisely the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization. We will certainly agree that this is a bad decision, because, of course, global health issues require consultation in organisations such as the World Health Organisation. But with regard to the defence in particular, I would like to ask you what, in your opinion, the European Union's direction should be. It is going after the militaristic logic and the arms race that Donald Trump is seeking to impose through NATO – not only, but also through NATO – or, eventually, the path that the European Union must take is the rejection of militarism and war that can only lead people to disaster.

Mr Cotrim de Figueiredo, you spoke saying that the European Union must distance itself from the Trump administration. And my specific question to you is how does the European Union have to distance itself? Should it give priority to increasing wages, pensions and improving the living conditions of peoples? Should the European Union prioritise support for productive sectors and the use of national productive capacities? Should he distance himself from the Trump administration by refusing the arms race and militarism? Should he distance himself from Trump by investing in public services, in ensuring affordable housing? Or is this distancing from Trump merely rhetorical, so that the same policy of satisfying major economic and financial interests can continue to be pursued within the European Union?

Honourable Member, the far right argues that the tycoons who dominate the media space and the communication space should be able to use the power they have freely, without any limits. He believes that the media and communication space should function like any market where a commodity is bought and sold, even if it means manipulating people's consciousness, and considers that any limit to such action is an attack on democracy. Honourable Member, you can continue to defend all this, you cannot say that this is democracy. And that Nazi salute, which we saw yesterday, shows what they are coming for.

Honourable Member, the media and communication space is too important for democracy to function. And the question I ask you is whether the path should be one of imposing limits on democratic functioning or whether, on the contrary, it is one of deepening democracy. Today, one of the proposals we have on the table is to strengthen measures to control content. And the question I ask you is: If disinformation feeds on ignorance, why not invest in education, training, access to science, culture? If disinformation feeds on obscurantism, why not invest in the critical awareness of citizens and the ability to guarantee all citizens access to higher levels of education? Perhaps this was a more robust response to defending democracy.

Mrs Lídia Pereira, it is clear today that the attempt to implement policies with environmental objectives, using financial instruments and market instruments, is a failure. The carbon emissions market is truly a demonstration that there is no goal behind it to achieve certain environmental goals, but there is truly a business that is done at the expense of increasing production. And the first question I wanted to ask him was this: whether or not it recognises the failure to use such financial and market-based instruments to achieve environmental objectives? And the second question is deeper. Do you not think that, in order to truly have a perspective of combating and adapting to climate change, we need to question the capitalist mode of production? Does not production, which uses the destruction of natural resources and ecosystems, which uses waste as a profit-making factor, appear to you to be incompatible with the achievement of those environmental objectives which you referred to in your intervention?

Mr President, the violence, the horror of Israel's genocidal action, to which the Palestinian people have been subjected for more than a year in the Gaza Strip, now suspended by a temporary ceasefire that must become permanent, is unimaginable. There are more than 160 000 Palestinian victims, among them dead, wounded and missing. The humanitarian, food, shelter and health situation is disastrous, putting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians at risk and demanding immediate responses. What steps will the European Union take to ensure that the humanitarian response continues to rely on the indispensable role of the United Nations Refugee Agency, despite Israel's decision? It is not enough to talk about the two-state solution. What action will the European Union take to ensure that Israel complies with international law and that the long-established solution set out in UN resolutions materialises? Peace depends on the realization of the national rights of the Palestinian people, which have remained unfulfilled for decades. And it is in this struggle that we will continue to engage.

Mr Bugalho, you mentioned the need for humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people and in the Gaza Strip. That's evidence. The humanitarian situation is truly tragic, but it is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that is in a position to guarantee humanitarian assistance, and Israel has taken the decision to ban the action of this United Nations agency. And the question I ask you is: How does this humanitarian assistance that is needed fit in with the intervention to reverse this decision of the State of Israel? Because if this decision is not reversed, there will be no humanitarian assistance, which is increasingly urgent and necessary for the Palestinian people.

Honourable Member, you have indeed spoken of the need for a substantive solution to the fundamental problem of respect for the national rights of the Palestinian people, including the implementation of the United Nations resolutions giving expression to those national rights, namely the right to have a state. And the question I ask you is: What should be the role of the European Union in this regard? What is the demand that the institutions of the European Union must do to ensure that these UN resolutions are complied with and that the national rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to have a state, can actually be a real reality for these millions of Palestinians?

Mr Tangier Corrêa, you have come here to tell us that Donald Trump is a great advocate of peace and you have come to tell us that he is largely responsible for the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. And I want to ask you how you can say that Donald Trump is a champion of peace, if he is the US president who calls for investment in the arms race, spending on war spending, extending NATO's military action around the world. And how can you say what you said about Gaza, if this is the man who was the President of the United States who transferred the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, in an attitude of contempt and utter ignorance of respect for the two-state solution. The honourable Member cannot defend Donald Trump here and at the same time say that he is defending the rights of the Palestinian people.

Madam President, you have already referred to the debate we will have today on Gaza, but we have not yet heard a single word from the institutions of the European Union about the aggression of Israeli settlers against the Palestinian population in the territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, territories illegally occupied by Israel. Reports of such attacks have multiplied in recent days. The situation in those illegally occupied territories is truly unsustainable. In 2024, the United Nations itself identified over 1,700 destroyed infrastructure, 1,400 settler attacks with the complicity of Israeli security forces, some 500 Palestinians killed and 4,000 Palestinians displaced. On the 28th, Israel's decision to ban the action of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Refugees will come to fruition if it is not reversed. And the question we ask is, where are the institutions of the European Union waiting for this situation to go, to put an end to it and to denounce it?

Mr President, 30 years ago, the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action set out a perspective that should have been a step forward on the path towards realising women's rights in all the dimensions of life in which these rights are expressed and felt. The 69th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women is an opportunity, not only to assess the state of play, but to discuss solutions that will enable progress to be made on this path, which has not yet been fully achieved. We need to move forward on this path to eliminate the inequalities that affect women. The struggle of women for equality cannot be separated from the struggle against economic and social exploitation. And it is necessary to guarantee conditions so that women see, in practice, at work, in life, in all its dimensions, guaranteed the right to housing, to work, to a life free from violence, the right to access to health, education and social protection. And for these rights to truly be a reality in their lives, we need to change policies. It is regrettable that here we hear interventions from the far right, counteracting the struggle of the sexes that women have been doing for their equality, and fighting us...

Mr President, the next session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women is a good opportunity to assess the progress made with regard to the fulfilment of women's rights. And the question we ask is simple: Is it possible to combat the inequalities affecting women by maintaining the same neoliberal policies that aggravate exploitation and impose severe social setbacks? Is it possible to guarantee the fulfilment of women's rights by maintaining policies that deny social rights and perpetuate inequalities in access to health, education, culture, social protection, work and employment? We don't think so. We really need to change policies.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the title of this debate is constructed with a good deal of hypocrisy. It even seems that the difficulties of small and medium-sized farmers and farm workers do not have a direct link to European Union policies. And it even seems that these policies do not have, in this Parliament, a majority support that goes from the Social Democrats to the extreme right. I give an example of this: the recent Free Trade Agreement with Mercosur, in a country like Portugal, will open the door to the agony of farms, especially in the meat sector, which already today has a brutal production deficit. In this context, the phenomena of concentration of production can be accentuated, of course, by the concern that this reality creates for small and medium-sized producers. But this is only the corollary of a path of the common agricultural policy that has been determined in this context for decades. In my country, 40% of farmers do not benefit from any direct support from the CAP and 10% of beneficiaries receive 70% of such support. Do you want to improve working conditions and mental health in the sector? Link payments to production, support family farming, promote short production and supply chains, ensure a fair income for smallholders and livestock farmers.

Mr President, Commissioner, subcontracting, labour intermediation, outsourcing of services are all mechanisms that aggravate the exploitation of those who work, which impose job insecurity and instability in the lives of workers. Now, the right way is not to create rules that make it possible to organize labor relations in such a way that, between the beneficiary of the provision of work and the worker, there are three, four, five, sometimes more entities, not only to guarantee a ladder of disaccountability regarding working conditions, but also to guarantee various levels of appropriation of the income from the value that is created with work. Subcontracting or outsourcing of services to hire doctors, nurses and other health professionals, essential for running hospitals or health centres, shall not be permitted. The path that must be taken, the priority that must be given, is to guarantee effective employment contracts for those who meet the permanent needs of companies.

Mr President, Commissioner, the role of trade unions is absolutely essential for the defence of workers' rights, and collective bargaining is one of the instruments for defending these rights and improving workers' working and living conditions. It is through collective agreements that wages are increased, working hours are reduced, safety and health at work are guaranteed, and vacation days are increased. Collective bargaining is, in fact, an instrument of social progress that should be valued in this sense. We therefore disagree with the European Union's guidelines, which focus on European social dialogue and the promotion of collective bargaining at European level. These options weaken national trade unions and their power to claim. What is needed is to enhance the role of trade unions in defending the rights of their workers, from the direct link with workers in companies and workplaces, acting and intervening in the democratic framework of defending workers' rights. We understand that there are far-right interventions here, that the only thing it has to say is hatred against workers and their rights. But we realize that, because that's also their historical role and that's also why...

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, anyone who has created expectations by choosing António Costa to chair the European Council will certainly be disappointed today to see that there is no change in the policies of the European Union. This is not yet where the President of the European Council comes to Parliament to really discuss the problems affecting the peoples. And there is no prospect on the agenda of this European Council meeting of discussing what really concerns citizens: support for policies to increase wages and pensions, support for policies that guarantee the right to decent and affordable housing for all, policies to halt the rise in the cost of living, to invest in public services to guarantee access to health, education, social protection or culture, and policies that genuinely invest in building solutions for peace and respect for the rights of peoples. On the contrary, António Costa's first meeting at the head of the European Council will be marked by plans for the indefinite prolongation of the war in Ukraine and by the stubbornness of the sanctions policy, by inaction in the face of the genocide of the Palestinian people, by the inhumanity of the migration policy. Here is a suggestion to the President of the European Council, António Costa: bring to this meeting the slogan that in Portugal is shouted in the streets, that the salary increase is fair and necessary. That would be a good contribution to the European Council discussing what is truly a priority in the lives of peoples.

Mr President, in Portugal, the PSD-CDS Government has decided to limit pregnant women's access to public hospitals. The government parties, and the government itself, which here in the European Parliament and in the European institutions, say that Portugal is the good student of the European Union, that Portugal is a good example of compliance with all the budgetary rules, all the targets that are imposed on us, in Portugal, at the moment, close the doors of public hospitals to pregnant women, to comply with these rules that allow them to make a good appearance before the European Union. What is happening in obstetrics is an example of what is happening in many other areas. The Government does not hire professionals, does not value their careers, leaves in exhaustion the few remaining health professionals, reduces or limits the access of users to health centers, pushes them to the hospital emergency room and, in the end, says that it is creating too much pressure, and that the teams of professionals cannot withstand so much pressure. Ladies and gentlemen, public services are essential to guarantee citizens' rights and the National Health Service (NHS) is absolutely indispensable to guarantee the right to health. When you value budgetary constraints here, remember that in Portugal it is pregnant women who pay the costs of these policies.

Mr President, Commissioner, these amendments concerning the rules on the transparency of international arbitration, of course, are without prejudice to having more access to documentation, to having more access to information, in particular by the public, and it is, of course, a positive element. Now, these amendments do not solve the fundamental problem. And the fundamental problem is that, when the public interest is at stake, it must be the courts of the State, it must be international law and, in particular, private international law that serves as the basis for resolving international disputes. Because, when the public interest is at stake, we cannot refer to arbitration the resolution of disputes, otherwise they will be captured by those who, from an economic point of view, have the capacity to influence the action of these arbitral tribunals. We cannot expect that a small state against a large transnational corporation will guarantee the preservation, the defence of its public interest in an arbitral tribunal that is not obliged to apply the substantive rules of law that preserve and defend the public interest. And that is the direction in which we should move and not that of encouraging arbitration.

Madam President, Commissioner, the fires in Portugal, in the Autonomous Region of Madeira or in the districts of Viseu and Aveiro are examples of disasters, the damage to which needs to be repaired. Support is needed for small and medium-sized farmers and forest producers, for small entrepreneurs, for the people who have been affected by these disasters. And it is important that there are European funds that can be mobilised for that response. That is why we shall be voting in favour of this proposal presented to us with the RESTORE programme. Nevertheless, we have put forward some proposals on issues that we think are important. Firstly, it seems to us that the possibility of mobilising and improving the Solidarity Fund and the emergency aid reserve, which are also intended for situations such as this, should not be dispensed with. Secondly, it seems to us that the funds that are used from the ERDF and the European Social Fund Plus for this purpose should be compensated so that they are not missing from the funds for economic, social and territorial cohesion. And thirdly, we propose that this compensation of money should be used for what really serves the peoples and should be made from the money earmarked for war and militarism.

Madam President, I begin by welcoming the European Ombudsman and the report she has presented to us on the work carried out in 2023, which is a beautiful portrait of what is the reality today in the European Union, of those who are allowed to do everything and of those who are severely harmed by the European reality, the European Union and its policies. I would like to highlight two aspects of the report presented by the Ombudsman: one on banking scandals and one on migration. The way in which the European Ombudsman intervened in complaints about the actions of banking and financial authorities, including the impact of financial scandals such as the Banco Popular scandal or the LIBOR rate scandal, shows how banks can do everything they want to the detriment of citizens, with citizens bearing those consequences and, with great difficulty, authorities preventing such practices. At the same time, the intervention of the European Ombudsman on migration in relation to violence and abuses against migrants and refugees and in relation to illegal practices of forced returns or other Frontex practices that are criticised by the European Ombudsman. These inevitably make a mark on the lives of migrants. This is a mark of inequality in the European Union.

Madam President, 35 years after the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, many of these rights are just a mirage. The thousands of children killed by Israel in the Gaza Strip are the cruelest and most inhuman proof of this reality. There is much to be done to make the rights of the Convention a reality in the lives of children. Parental poverty must be eradicated so that it does not also affect children, by guaranteeing work with rights and fair wages, the strengthening of parental and breastfeeding leave or the universalisation and strengthening of family allowances. There is a need to increase investment in universal, public and quality health and education services, to increase public and universal provision of crèches and pre-school education, to ensure decent housing conditions, balanced nutrition and accessible transport. In order for them to grow up happily, it is necessary to combat the discrimination and violence to which they are subjected and to guarantee them an effective right to leisure and free time, to receive care in the family environment. We need to listen to children and give them an effective opportunity to participate in the decisions that affect them. It's a long road, but it's a road we need to go.