Speeches

Mr Germain, you have come to announce to us the idea that peace within the European Union is achieved by investing resources from the European Union budget to arm ourselves for a confrontation with Russia. And the questions I ask you are these: How do you think peace is achieved with the threat of a military confrontation, especially with the threat of a military confrontation with a nuclear power? How far can a nuclear confrontation guarantee peace? What role do you think there should be for dialogue, for diplomacy, for the political solution to conflicts? And do you really think that the European Union budget should prioritise spending on armaments, with so many social problems to be solved across Europe?

Madam President, Commissioner, the nature of the InvestEU programme is clear, and its conditions have never left any doubt as to who is benefiting and who is paying the benefit. Instead of supporting and financing public investment with direct public grants, the European Union has opted with InvestEU to provide public guarantees for private investments. The conditions of this program are those that are usually prepared in these schemes: risks are transferred to taxpayers so that profits are private, but losses are socialised. The consequences of these options are well known. In Portugal, moreover, we have several examples of this in the scandals of BPN, BES/Novo Banco, Banif or the privatisation of TAP, in which the current PSD-CDS government once again insists. This so-called simplification package omnibus shows what these simplifications of the European Union are for and to whom they are for. This proposal reduces transparency by exempting transactions below EUR 300 000 from reporting, compared to EUR 100 000 before, and simplifies it by weakening democratic control. The level of financial risks that are assumed is increased by reducing the level of confidence in the loss provision from 95 % to 90 %, and the transfer of risks to taxpayers is maintained, with the risks of assuming the losses of private businesses financed with public money. These are not options that serve economic development and justice.

Mr President, deregulation in matters as sensitive as artificial intelligence, the protection of personal data or e-privacy makes these proposals unacceptable. In artificial intelligence, we want to reduce requirements for high-risk systems and transparency requirements, we want to postpone the entry into force of control and protection rules, we want to delay and weaken rules that were already provided for in the Artificial Intelligence Act that did not come into force. In personal data, it is proposed to reduce the scope of protected personal data, limit the information rights of individuals and allow companies the legal possibility to circumvent consent requirements. On ePrivacy, general authorisation is given to create and access information on end-user devices for audience measurement, facilitating tracking and profiling of users. The proposed amendments to the AI Act and the GDPR would still have an unacceptable impact on workers. Companies would be able to collect sensitive data from employees for various purposes, including the training of artificial intelligence, without asking permission from the employee and promoting the commodification of their personal data. They would also allow this to be done by jeopardising trade union action in workplaces and whistleblowing. This is not a way to ensure progress. This is a way to impose the digital jungle.

Honourable Member, you spoke about the need to introduce restrictions on young people's access, particularly by controlling age, introducing age verification criteria. My question to you is whether or not you think those solutions should be made compatible with requirements to protect the private and personal lives and privacy of young people and of those who use those commercial platforms, or whether you believe that those age restrictions can be placed independently of those limitations.

Mr President, Commissioner, the position that came out of this Parliament on the 2026 budget of the European Union kept wrong choices and did not include aspects that were essential to meet the needs of the peoples. The conclusion of the discussion with the Commission and the Council confirmed this result: the detailed changes introduced at the final stage of the discussion of the 2026 Budget do not change the substantive options that go in the wrong direction and contrary to the needs and interests of the peoples. The final version of the budget continues to leave behind the response in improving wages and living conditions, fighting poverty, housing, social cohesion, investing in public services to ensure access to health, education, social protection, transport or culture. The caricature of this option is a last-minute increase of EUR 1 million in the European Social Fund Plus. Today, another debate has criticised the European Union's dependence on and critical delay in matters of industrial production and technological development. But the budget continues to deny support for national policies to harness productive capacities and resources, environmental and ecological balance. On the contrary, this budget reflects and deepens the options made in the mid-term review of the current multiannual financial framework, accentuating the diversion of resources from the budget towards militarism, war and the arms race, towards policies of public financing of multinationals and economic groups, towards the policy of expulsion of migrants outside the borders. These are the options that absorb the lion's share of the EU budget. Even cohesion funds are used to finance militarism. The peoples needed a budget for progress, development and social justice. This is not that budget.

Honourable Member, the situation with regard to semiconductors, which is really at the heart of this debate we are having here today – there is no point in deluding ourselves with that – is truly revealing of two things: On the one hand, the critical dependence of the countries of the European Union on issues that are absolutely essential for industrial and technological development and, on the other hand, the profoundly negative consequences of the European Union's subordination to the United States, when, in particular, it meddles in the trade war between the United States and China. And the question I ask you, starting mainly from the example of Nexperia, with all the negative impacts on the automotive sector, is whether the Honourable Member believes that this position of the European Union is correct, and whether it is right that workers should pay for it.

Madam President, honourable Member, before Donald Trump came to power and the threat of sanctions on China, there were no disruptions in international supply chains. And it is precisely the fact that the European Union puts itself in a subordinate position vis-à-vis Donald Trump in this trade war with China that leads to artificially created crisis situations, such as the one we saw recently in the Netherlands regarding the Nexperia company. And the question I want to ask you is this: Is the role of the European Union of subordination to Donald Trump, with all these damages, really the right option?

Mr President, Commissioner, sacrificing the answer to social problems to subsidise arms production is the great message of this programme of the European defence industry. And the European Union's options are clear: Spend money making weapons, but not building houses. When we talk about the Child Guarantee, the doors to the budget are closed. But if the topic is the arms race and the militarisation of the European Union, there are EUR 1.5 billion to spend by 2027, and at least EUR 131 billion from the Competitiveness Fund in the next multiannual budget. And even money from the European Social Fund or the European Regional Development Fund can be diverted. Instead of producing what people lack to improve their lives, the European Union's choice is to get European industry and factories to produce what will destroy lives. Tax benefits, public support, European funding – all serve to drain public resources into the billion-dollar business of arms, death and destruction. The door is opened to corruption and influence-trafficking, with an opaque policy linking political power and arms economic groups. The militarisation of the European Union is a futureless policy that undermines and threatens the future of the new generations.

Madam President, the conclusions of this European Council are a faithful portrait of the European Union. On the militarisation of the EU, 21 paragraphs of political commitments, billion-dollar investments, accelerated timelines of measures to deliver by 2030. On the green paths of privilege for economic groups, dubbed competitiveness, 28 paragraphs of policies and measures to lighten rules and requirements, open doors to the businesses of multinationals, to make the environment and climate action another thriving business opportunity. On housing, two paragraphs, without any concrete action or funding line for the public responses required to respond to this very serious problem in housing. And about low wages and pensions, problems in health, education or social security, not a word. To add to this, no serious effort to end the conflict in Ukraine, only rejection and obstruction of the necessary path of diplomacy, dialogue and political resolution of the conflict, and the reaffirmation by the EU of its intention to promote the prolongation of the war, on which it is said to have already spent EUR 177 billion. This is not a European Union with its back to the people, it is a European Union with its feet on them.

Madam President, Mr Cunha, do you mention housing in the conclusions of the European Council? That's talking about rope at hanging house. In these conclusions, there are two paragraphs on housing issues, without political commitments, without funding lines, without timetables, without any intention to address this problem, which is a central problem for the peoples of the European Union. And in contrast to this, on the militarization of the European Union, we have 21 paragraphs with political commitments, with billionaire investments, with accelerated timetables for militarization by 2030. Where do you find this social concern? Where does the honourable Member find that concern for people's living conditions and concerns, if the contrast between these two issues in these conclusions of the European Council is what he told him?