Speeches

Mr Assis, the Draghi report says and I quote: “We need a genuine EU economic foreign policy. The EU should coordinate preferential trade agreements and direct investment". End of citation. The report also proposes the creation of a decision-making mechanism for the approval of common external direct investment, i.e. a mechanism enabling the European Union to decide on the external direct investment that is made in each country of the European Union, naturally by companies, by investors from outside the European Union. This, in itself, already means a factor of concern, particularly for countries like Portugal, but it is a factor of even greater concern, because this, together with the policy of facilitating mergers and acquisitions, naturally refers our country to a very difficult role in dealing with foreign direct investment, if it is conditioned by the European Union. I would like to know what the opinion of the Socialist Party is on this matter.

Ladies and gentlemen, 20 years ago, Mr Barroso proclaimed the liberalisation of the energy sector, saying that competition would bring down prices. Exactly the opposite happened. Today, we are told that the energy transition and the reduction of energy prices will be achieved through further liberalisation. They are deceiving us again, choosing good pretexts to hide bad politics. The situation in Portugal is an example of this. The production of energy from renewable sources in Portugal is already much more significant than that produced from non-renewable sources. However, the European price formation mechanism makes us pay for energy at the cost of the most expensive non-renewable energy sources. The consequences are in sight. We have the highest percentage in the European Union of people who cannot adequately heat their homes. Small businesses are heavily penalised for their energy bills, but economic groups in the energy sector multiply their profits. We need an energy policy that serves the people and national development. It is not enough to invoke the energy transition. It is necessary to intervene in the formation of energy prices and take public control of the strategic sector.

Honourable Member, you have come here to attack the production of energy from renewable sources and I want to ask you a very direct question, from the Portuguese case. Portugal currently produces more energy from renewable sources than from non-renewable sources. But the European price formation mechanism makes us pay the price of energy at the cost of the price of energy produced from non-renewable sources. Why do you not call into question the European price formation mechanism? Is it because it favours energy groups and the far right side with the interests of those energy groups? Is that why the far right does not dare to attack the rules that favour this business, which is done at the expense of people’s poverty, at the expense of the ruin of economies?

Mrs von der Leyen, voting against this European Commission means rejecting its political programme. People need peace, they need cooperation. They need social cohesion, better wages and pensions, access to housing, health, education, social protection, responding to environmental problems. The Commission insists on policies of militarism, war and confrontation; policies that deny social and labour rights and turn into business all the conditions on which a fair and dignified life depends for those who work or have worked a lifetime. Peoples need economies geared towards meeting their needs, the exploitation of productive resources and national development. The Commission insists on so-called competitiveness policies, with more liberalisation of markets, more privatisations and even more favouring of economic groups, multinationals and banks. People need more democracy, social progress and development. Affirming this alternative that serves the people, we reject the Commission and its policies.

Mr President, general increases in wages and pensions; upgrading careers and working conditions; strengthening public investment in housing and the responsiveness of public services, health, education, social security and culture; support for productive sectors and scientific and technological development; a fair taxation policy with the alleviation of taxes on labour and the effective taxation of economic groups and large fortunes. These are some of the demands that the workers and the Portuguese people take to the streets on November 29, in a major action that was called by the CGTP Intersindical Nacional against the State Budget, which the PSD and CDS Government will make approved, with the support of the Socialist Party and the parties to its right. This is a response that Portuguese workers are giving to a policy that does not serve their interests, that does not serve the development of the country, that does not respond to any national problem, but that satisfies the interests of large economic groups and the financial sector, and that has behind it, in many circumstances, the guidelines of the European Union. We want to express here our solidarity with this important struggle that the workers are taking forward.

Mr President, the rate of biodiversity loss is now at rates that experts consider to be unprecedented in the period of human history. The announcement of targets is not enough to halt this trend, particularly in international protocols. Moreover, the European Union is well aware of the failure of such an approach, failing to meet the objectives of halting the loss of biodiversity in the territories of its Member States by 2020. This COP16 has made it clear that, beyond targets, the means are needed to develop policies to meet social needs within the framework of a harmonious and sustainable relationship between human beings and nature. In good time, we have proposed to increase the European Union's budget in this area. Regrettably, it has been rejected here. Alongside the means, the preservation of biodiversity, the restoration of ecosystems needs a profound change in the productive paradigm, responding first and foremost to the interests of the peoples, which EU policies continue to deny.

The struggle for a life free from exploitation, discrimination and inequality is a millennial struggle of the human being. But the recognition of women's rights is only part of recent history and, in many cases, even today, it is only a proclamation with no concrete consequence in women's lives. Domestic and dating violence, prostitution, sexual violence, discrimination and harassment in the workplace, denial of sexual and reproductive rights are some of the forms of violence against women that continue to mark our reality. They are one of the cruelest expressions of an unequal society, which does not allow all human beings a full realization. Women's rights must be in the law and in the reality of life, including equality at work, in the family and in society. Denouncing violence against women and demanding policies to eradicate it are urgent tasks. Eradicating violence against women is a fight for democracy.

Madam President, the scheduling of this debate and the corresponding resolution are part of the logic of instigating and promoting confrontation and escalation of the conflict in Eastern Europe, with the serious dangers it entails for the Ukrainian and Russian peoples, but also for the peoples of Europe. The resolution confirms this, first of all, by insisting on the strengthening of sanctions and the omission of their consequences in the worsening of the economic and social situation in several countries, a worsening that is being paid for by workers and peoples. That is also why we have distanced ourselves from the resolution tabled by our group. What is urgent is the creation of initiatives that promote dialogue and the political solution of the conflict, to which this resolution does not contribute, but seeks to obstruct. It is a resolution that highlights the hypocrisy of the European Parliament which, at the same time, covers up and sustains Israel's genocidal policy against the Palestinian people. We need peace, not more war.

Mr President, Portugal is currently experiencing a difficult situation with regard to health care, particularly in the area of medical emergency and INEM. And some of those responsible for these difficulties in Portugal are sitting in this Parliament. Here sit those responsible for approving policies of privatization of public services and favoring the business of disease, instead of defending the right to health. Those responsible for policies of budgetary constraints, limitations on public investment, obstacles to improving the functioning of public health services and increasing their responsiveness sit here. Here sit those responsible for policies of devaluation of workers, their careers, their professions, their working conditions, their working hours, which, being deregulated, disarticulate work and family life and lead to exhaustion and exhaustion of professionals, and lead to the abandonment of public services and the refusal to present themselves for competitions to be hired when they are needed. This happens in general, but it happens in particular in relation to doctors, nurses and pre-hospital emergency technicians at INEM. And that was all that was missing, was that the workers were now held accountable for the policies imposed on them.

Madam President, the Israeli Parliament has decided to block the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. This inhuman and intolerable decision leaves hundreds of thousands of Palestinians without the humanitarian aid they need, imposing a brutal degradation of their already weak living conditions. The Commissioner-General of this UN agency said that this legislation will only deepen the suffering of the Palestinian people, particularly in the Gaza Strip, where people live – and I quote – ‘pure hell’, even putting at risk an entire generation of Palestinian children. The UN Secretary-General found it unacceptable that the implementation of such laws could have devastating consequences for Palestinian refugees. The silence of the European Parliament or the postponement of this debate would mean complicity with this inhuman and criminal decision of the Israeli Parliament. We therefore propose that this debate be held and that it be held now, because it is now that it is urgent.

Mr President, labour productivity has always risen above real wage developments. The consequence of this is the transfer of wealth created by the workers to capital, and this problem can only be solved by increasing wages and ensuring a fairer distribution of the wealth created. That is the bottom line. However, this debate on competitiveness focuses only on the competitive comparison with the United States and China. Draghi's report is a kind of unconfessed Bible of the European Commission. In this report, workers are seen only as parts of a production cog, their rights and needs are not considered and competitiveness is addressed, giving priority to the creation of pan-European monopoly companies, the concentration and centralisation of capital, the aggravation of the exploitation of those who work. The path of development and social justice is another and must have workers, their rights, their wages, their living conditions and a fairer distribution of the wealth created by work at the centre of political concerns and priorities.

Mr Sérgio Humberto, in your speech you spoke of the importance of education and training for the qualification of workers. And I want you to tell us: How can this be done by accepting the budgetary constraints that the European Union imposes on us? How is this done – as is currently the case in Portugal – with the government that you support submitting a proposal for a State Budget which, accepting the budgetary constraints imposed on us by the European Union, does not invest in public schools, does not invest in hiring and requalifying teachers' careers, does not invest in hiring and valuing educational aids, specialised technicians? How does all this happen? Otherwise, his speech is a contradiction with practice.

Mr President, it was not because of a so-called fragmentation of the European railway area that Portugal lost its international rail link, going back 100 years, or that it lost 1 200 kilometres of railway lines. This has happened within the framework of European Union policies, which have promoted public disinvestment in this strategic sector. It is necessary to discuss the consequences of the policies of the European Union and its railway packages on the dismemberment and weakening of the sector, favouring a path of privatisation and concentration in the hands of multinationals. It is in this context of sacred liberalisation that the creation of yet another high-speed public-private partnership between Lisbon and Porto is now under discussion in Portugal, when financing is already guaranteed by the European Investment Bank. Profits are privatised, investments are mutualised, infrastructures serving the interests of multinationals are favoured. It is necessary to strengthen public investment, but in a public management network that serves the country and its regions, integrating its various dimensions and valuing workers in the rail sector.

Mrs Vasconcelos, you have brought us concerns about the railway, and I would like to ask you: Why don’t you criticise – o mea culpa – the policies of liberalisation of the sector, which have forced privatisations and concentration of the railway sector in the hands of multinationals? Why don't you tell us your opinion on the project to create a public-private partnership on the high-speed connection between Lisbon and Porto, with money, with financing guaranteed by the European Investment Bank? Does liberalism only work when it is sustained with public money and particularly with European funds? Is this your idea of the road to the railway in Portugal and the rest of Europe?

Madam President, the report of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women concluded that the situation in Poland has dramatically deteriorated. Polish women do not have access to safe and legal IVG and are forced to take desperate measures, often looking for unsafe alternatives, or to travel abroad to access necessary care. The situation in Poland is a real demonstration that sexual and reproductive rights and women's rights are not a gift, nor are they guaranteed forever, and must be conquered and defended as a structuring aspect of any democratic society. In 2007, after much struggle, Portugal took a historic step by legalizing the voluntary termination of pregnancy. The inclusion of this right in the law was a great victory of the decades-long struggle for women's rights, but many of them still do not have access to IVG, because health services do not guarantee its realization. That is why we continue to fight so that, in Poland or Portugal, women's rights are a reality in law, but also in life.

Madam President, safe and legal pathways for migration, investment in social integration policies, respect for social and labour rights as universal rights, rejection of discrimination and combating the instrumentalisation of migration by major economic interests – none of this guides the policies of the European Union. From the Migration Pact to the 2025 Budget and the latest European Council conclusions, what the EU has to present is the preference for closing and retaining migrants and refugees at borders, detentions and the difficulties of asylum procedures, it is such a selective migration policy that it becomes insurmountable even for those seeking refuge from war, hunger or death. Hiding the indecency of its policies behind the sarcasm, the European Union now designates return promotion as a policy of expulsion of migrants and refugees. There is a need for another policy, an inclusive migration policy, respect for human rights and the dignity of all individuals, regardless of their origin. That's what people need.

Madam President, Ana Catarina Mendes, the members of the Socialist Party have approved the Pact for Migration – which contains a large part of the inhumane measures with which migrants are treated today – and the group of Socialists and Democrats, of which you are one, is preparing to approve the European Union budget for 2025, which even refers to the physical infrastructure to contain migration. And what I'm asking you is: How is it possible to make this discourse of defending the humanist values of a migration policy and, at the same time, to be in agreement with policies and measures of this nature?