Speeches

Madam President, this report on critical medicines raises a number of concerns, first of all, that we are dealing with an issue that is absolutely fundamental to the defence of citizens' rights, which is the accessibility of medicines, particularly critical medicines. And the key issue in this regard is to enable each Member State, in accordance with its productive capacity and by developing that productive capacity, by developing the science and research that is needed, to be able to ensure access to medicines for its citizens. This report is based on a completely different basis from that, which is the basis on which, today, the Member States are held hostage by the pharmaceutical industry - particularly the multinationals, which decide at will what profit margins they want to make, using an issue that is absolutely fundamental for any country, which is to guarantee access to medicines for its citizens. We have had the dramatic example of this with the COVID-19 pandemic and, unfortunately, the path that this report points out is not to free the states and peoples of the European Union from those shackles that make access to medicines difficult.

Mr President, High Representative Kaja Kallas, the aggressive and exploitative offensive of US imperialism is a threat to Greenland. The submission of the European Union to the United States increases the risk of this threat materialising, and the double standards of the European Union weakens the ability to defend the people of Greenland from these threats. Trump's threats must be met with a firm response of demand, respect for international law, respect for the sovereignty of peoples, refusal to use force and the threat of war as criteria for international relations. But the European Union is in a difficult position to provide such a firm response. The Commissioner spoke to us today about sovereignty, and the problem is to know where these criteria were for demanding respect for sovereignty and international law in the face of the occupation of Palestine, in the face of the war of aggression and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, the aggression of Libya, Syria. Where were these criteria in the face of the aggression against Venezuela? The problem, and I conclude, Mr President, is that this attitude of submission to the United States for so long now makes it difficult to straighten the spine to give the firm answer that is needed.

Mr President, Mr Hansen, my question to you is: in the face of the threats that Donald Trump has made in relation to Greenland, and after the violation of the sovereignty of international law in relation to Venezuela and all the other threats that he has made in relation to other countries, what indeed should be the response of the European Union? Is it in the framework of submission and subservience to the United States that the European Union can find a way to convince Donald Trump? For those who have advocated sanctions, restrictive measures, the refusal of economic and political relations in other circumstances, what will be, after all, the firm response that the European Union should give - in your opinion, of course - to the Trump administration in the face of these threats that it is now making to Greenland?

Mr President, Commissioner, farmers have reason to protest against Mercosur, and the European Commission should listen to those reasons. Farmers are protesting because this agreement means a threat to the liquidation of tens of thousands of family farms, to the reduction of farmers' incomes, to the accelerated abandonment of production, to the worsening of food dependence. These consequences are dramatic in agriculture, but they are also dramatic in industry and services, particularly for small and medium-sized producers, who, oriented towards the internal market, may be threatened with unfavourable competition. Although the agreement was signed on the 17th, the moment is not to throw the towel to the ground, and the proposal we make is to act in three directions: first, suspend the decision on the provisional entry into force of the Mercosur Agreement; second, to ask national parliaments to give their opinion on such an agreement, either through the ratification process or through other legal instruments; and, thirdly, not to move forward with the Mercosur process, in its regulation or in its implementation, without such action by national parliaments to defend farmers and other productive sectors.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no woman who takes lightly a voluntary interruption of pregnancy. And it is important that, by making that choice, that woman should not be confronted with the inhumanity of having to clandestinely voluntarily terminate her pregnancy, jeopardising her health, her life, in truly inhuman conditions. And for this, it is necessary to guarantee legal conditions, safe, with medical support and with the necessary social support so that this voluntary termination of pregnancy can be done safely. We voted in favour of this initiative because it points in this direction, and we want to stress the importance of making the appropriate investment so that, in addition to the law providing for the legal possibility of voluntary termination of pregnancy in a safe manner, it can be made in health services with universal and free access, of quality, with all the public investment that needs to be made in health services – particularly in countries such as Portugal, where, although this possibility is provided for by law, there are currently no dignified conditions, from the point of view of the National Health Service, for it to materialise.