Speeches

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?

Madam President, TAP is a strategic company for Portugal, a key company in air connections, passenger and freight transport and its development capacity in the areas of maintenance and engineering. Its strengthening – the strengthening of TAP as a public undertaking – is essential to ensure that it serves the national interest and the economic development of the country. But the current PSD-CDS government does exactly the opposite and has launched a process of privatization of that public company against the national interest, under the cover of the guidelines and policies of the European Union towards the privatization of companies and strategic sectors, and to the detriment of the Portuguese people and their ability to use the public aviation company as an instrument of national development. And it does all this by covering up the privatisation process, namely by refusing the information that it knows exists about the profit character of that company and the revenues it gives to the State, not only with the income it generates, but also in taxes and social security contributions. These European Union guidelines for the privatisation of state-owned enterprises in strategic sectors are wrong guidelines and no government is obliged to follow them, including the Portuguese government, which takes this decision on its own responsibility against the interests of the people and the country.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is clear that multinationals and large companies must be taxed, and taxed robustly and effectively, and that their income must be taxed in the territories where it is generated. That is an absolutely essential element and we regret that the small corrections that Parliament is preparing to make to this BEFIT scheme do not solve the problems that have been at the root of it from the beginning. This BEFIT regime is a tax-free regime for multinationals which, on the other hand, is approved against the sovereignty of states. And why is it a tax break? Because tax regimes that are already more robust in the taxation of multinationals and large companies, end up being replaced by this regime that facilitates a 15% rate. And secondly, this is an approved regime against the sovereignty of states, because sovereignty is not only the decision-making capacity of national bodies, it is also the ability to define a fiscal policy according to the needs of each people and the reality of each economy, and this regime prevents this from being done at the level of each state.

You know that the problem is that when there is a towel that is too short for the table, no matter how much you pull to one side to cover one part of the table, there is another part of the table that is always without a towel. And in this case, the design of the national and regional plans that the European Commission has proposed to us brings together a large amalgamation of funds to cut, in general, for all of them. And the fact that, both in relation to the CAP and in relation to issues such as POSEI, which you have just mentioned, one-off measures are being taken to prevent the cuts from being as dramatic as those envisaged in the Commission's initial proposal does not solve the fundamental problem. In the end, the national and regional partnership plans will be used as an instrument of blackmail, in which the Commission provides funds in exchange for policies that the States and regions have to comply with in order to pass the test of the Commission. With a smaller budget, this is all doubly worse.

Mr President, Commissioner, the proposal for a multiannual financial framework is a cloud that overshadows the future of the peoples. For arms and war, there are budget increases and drainage of other funds, but the cuts are merciless in cohesion, social policy, support for agriculture and fisheries, the environment and climate action. The national and regional plans are not for partnership, but for blackmailing the States to make the policies that the Commission orders. The Member States will have to decide between cohesion or social policy, between rural and regional development or support for agriculture and fisheries. On housing, poverty and other urgent issues for people's lives, not a political commitment! There is no simplification to make access to funds easier for small and medium-sized enterprises, farmers and fishermen or social organisations, but the shareholders of multinationals and economic and financial groups are reassured by the new Competitiveness Fund and the financing of their billionaire businesses. The new own resources have turned the development pyramid upside down and impose heavier contributions on the least developed countries. This proposal harms Portugal, but the problem is general and concerns do not leave any people rested. This MFF proposal does not serve the peoples or their future.

Madam President, the European Union's migration policy and the Pact on Migration have no objective of regulating migration flows, combating trafficking in human beings or combating crime. They have no such purpose. The only objective is to maintain the unworthy situation with which migrants are treated so that they are more easily exploited and so that this exploitation helps to exploit other workers, degrading the wages of all, degrading the working conditions of all, degrading the living conditions of all. And this debate that we have had here today is clear about the unfair and unworthy nature of the European Union's migration policy and the most obvious example of this is in the discussion on the solidarity mechanism. After this debate, we realised that the countries that should respect the solidarity mechanism and receive migrants will use the mechanisms they have to refuse the application of this mechanism. But along the way, the far right has already poured out all hatred against migrants, including against minor children, as Mr Villalba has done. This is an unworthy policy and what migrants need is to be treated as human beings, with rights and the right to have a life with dignity and a future.

Madam President, Mrs Miguel Pedro, this report gives us a relatively realistic picture of the cruelty of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, but there are three aspects on which it was important to reflect in relation to Portugal. Contrary to the narrative that is made, Portugal is not identified as one of the countries where there is migratory pressure or even risk of migratory pressure, but it is also one of the countries where the government has not provided data on reception centres. And the question I wanted to ask him was this: has the government not delivered these data because it is ashamed of the situation it has created or because it has recently given them up on the RRP? What drives the government to hide these elements?

Madam President, Commissioner Tzitzikostas, we agree that it makes no sense for the European Union to impose seasonal changes of time. The setting of standard time is a matter for the Member States and that is how it should be decided. And the decision on the seasonal change of time cannot be detached from the geographical, social, cultural or other particularities of each country. Although progress has been made in addressing this issue, there is no closed position of the scientific community on the terms in which seasonal time changes should be considered, nor on the benefits or detriments of the existence of such changes and their implications for the health and well-being of the population. The existence or not of seasonal changes of time must take into account the will of each people, the opinion of the scientific community and the interest of each country. What is not acceptable is that there should be any kind of imposition by the European Union on this matter.

Madam President, Mrs Bjerre, Commissioner Šefčovič, as the European Council meeting is only tomorrow, we are still in time to leave a challenge. Make sure that this meeting of the European Council is not just a meeting of pretending concern for the peoples. They're really worried. Do not use housing, the situation in the Middle East or migration policy to pretend to care about peoples. Really worry and leave this meeting with political commitments, with money to invest and with deadlines so that this investment can guarantee access to housing, to have a humanist migration policy and to have peace and respect for the rights of the Palestinian people in the Middle East, with a permanent ceasefire, an end to the genocide and the creation of the State of Palestine. Ursula von der Leyen’s intervention here has left us with detailed plans and large investment packages for militarism, the arms race, military spending, the prolongation of the war in Ukraine, simplification and other facilities for multinationals. But he left us only references of intentions on issues that are people’s concerns. On issues such as the fight against poverty, not a word, and the objective of eradicating it is pushed back to 2050. This is not a way to ensure concern for responding to the needs of peoples.

Mrs Temido, you certainly heard the speech by the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in which you spoke precisely about these two aspects that you mentioned in your speech. And the question I want to ask you is whether you think that balance is achieved. The President of the Commission spoke in detail about plans, about investment packages, about timetables for investing in militarism, the arms race and military spending. On housing issues, neither political commitment, nor investment package, nor timetable to ensure access to housing. Do you think that these matters will even be dealt with in a balanced way at the European Council meeting, or do you think that the issue of housing is only on the agenda to disguise the other topics?

Mr President, Commissioner Serafin, the mid-term review of the current multiannual financial framework has accentuated the diversion of budgetary resources towards militarism and war and the policy of expelling migrants outside borders, disregarding the needs of peoples and national development. This proposed budget of the European Union for 2026 reflects these options and deepens them, leaving the response to the real problems of each country and each people even further behind. Outside the priorities and objectives of the budget, there are issues such as access to housing, social cohesion, combating poverty, improving wages and living conditions, investing in public services to ensure access to health, education, social protection, transport or culture, supporting national policies to harness productive capacities and resources, environmental and ecological balance. On the contrary, militarism, war, the arms business and the favouring of multinationals absorb the lion's share of the EU budget. In order to overcome the displeasure of the peoples, the unjust and unequal distribution of the budgetary resources that should be at the service of the peoples is concealed. The example of this is the cohesion funds which, under the cohesion heading, are even shorter for these purposes, because they are now also used to finance the so-called militarism of defence and security. Even for military mobility it is possible to use cohesion funds. This is not a budget for progress, development or social justice. It is a budget of backsliding and exacerbating inequalities and injustices.

Mr President, the European Commission's work programme for 2026 has a major imbalance between the work that the Commission wants to do for multinationals and that which can meet the expectations of workers, peoples, small and medium-sized enterprises. And it is not only in the number and type of legislative and non-legislative initiatives, it is in the objectives proposed and in the matters dealt with. There is no initiative aimed at reducing the cost of living, curbing rising prices or promoting higher wages. But for multinationals there are proposals for a legal offshore, called the 28th legal regime, proposals for deepening the capital market, an omnibus package of tax facilities and massive measures to promote business, militarism and armaments. In housing, the Commission wants to deal with short-term rentals and building rules, but it does not say anything about a European programme that is needed for investment in expanding the supply of public housing or support for cooperative, non-profit-making construction. It is a matter of great difference and, from a political point of view, significant.

Mr Cunha, you referred to small and medium-sized enterprises and the question I wanted to ask you is precisely that: how do small and medium-sized enterprises survive with a European Commission work programme that focuses exclusively on the privileges and favouring of multinationals? In this work programme for 2026 we have the proposal of the legal offshore of the 28th legal regime, proposals for deepening the capital market, an omnibus package of tax facilities, measures to promote the arms business, all this addressed to multinationals. So the question I ask you is really this: how do small and medium-sized enterprises survive through measures favouring multinationals of this scale?

Mrs Ana Catarina Mendes, your political group said that it was satisfied with the work programme presented by the European Commission. My question to you is whether you are satisfied with a work programme which merely announces intentions regarding quality employment or the fight against poverty, without pointing out anything concrete and which, with regard to housing, is limited to short-term rentals and building rules, without saying anything about the need for a European programme to increase the supply of public housing. Is this a satisfactory work programme for the honourable Member?

Madam President, Commissioner Šuica, the announcement of the ceasefire in Gaza is late and unfulfilled. It took two years of genocide, two years of courageous resistance by the Palestinian people in defence of their rights, supported by a growing international movement of solidarity with Palestine, to which we have also given expression and continue to give expression. The last few days confirm the lack of seriousness, disloyalty and boycott of the Israeli regime, which has always had the support of the European Union for its genocidal policy of occupation and colonisation. Now is the time to demand that the agreement announced points the way to a permanent ceasefire, an end to genocide, unconditional access to humanitarian aid, which Israel continues to block, the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, and an end to Israeli attacks in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Palestinian people have a right to their sovereignty. This Parliament and the European Union have a duty to contribute to the creation of the State of Palestine in accordance with the United Nations resolutions. The European Union cannot continue to be complicit in the aggression and violation of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Madam President, Commissioner Mînzatu, we are having this debate at a time when the European Union's first anti-poverty strategy is under discussion and under construction. We would therefore like to stress that the reference point of this European Union strategy must be the eradication of poverty, because the objective of eradicating poverty is an essential objective for building democratic societies, in which human rights are fully respected, in all their dimensions, as political, economic, social and cultural rights. The objectives of the European Pillar of Social Rights in the fight against poverty are today very far from what is needed. And the objective of this strategy must be, in fact, the eradication of poverty, and this strategy of the European Union must not have less ambitious criteria and references than those that already result from international references, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and other elements pointed out at UN level. The eradication of poverty must be undertaken with the corresponding urgency, pointing the year 2035 to the achievement of this goal, based on a political commitment to a robust and diversified policy, which assumes the elimination of inequalities in the distribution of wealth. A strategy geared towards full employment, such as guiding economic and social policies, ensuring fair wages, decent and safe working conditions, access to social protection, universal access to public services or housing and other absolutely essential criteria, such as combating discrimination against children, women, Roma communities and persons with disabilities. These objectives must be linked to essential financial resources in order to be effective.

Madam President, Commissioner Serafin, the discussion of the next multiannual financial framework still smells more like gunpowder than new houses ready to live in. People need a peace- and cooperation-oriented MFF that addresses problems such as the housing crisis, prioritising economic, social and territorial cohesion and objectives such as full employment, raising the living conditions of workers, eradicating poverty, democratic access to health and education, promoting ecological balance. We do not need an MFF led by the European Commission to impose its policies on states, much less to favour major economic and financial interests and multinationals, to the detriment of peoples, small and medium-sized enterprises, development and social justice. We need an MFF that compensates countries harmed by common policies and supports Member States in national policies that harness and develop national productive resources and capacities. We need an MFF that takes on the objective of eliminating development asymmetries between countries in economic, social, scientific and technological terms. We need an MFF of more progress and less gunpowder.

Madam President, Commissioner Serafin, the discussion of the next multiannual financial framework still smells more like gunpowder than new houses ready to live in. People need a peace- and cooperation-oriented MFF that addresses problems such as the housing crisis, prioritising economic, social and territorial cohesion and objectives such as full employment, raising the living conditions of workers, eradicating poverty, democratic access to health and education, promoting ecological balance. We do not need an MFF led by the European Commission to impose its policies on states, much less to favour major economic and financial interests and multinationals, to the detriment of peoples, small and medium-sized enterprises, development and social justice. We need an MFF that compensates countries harmed by common policies and supports Member States in national policies that harness and develop national productive resources and capacities. We need an MFF that takes on the objective of eliminating development asymmetries between countries in economic, social, scientific and technological terms. We need an MFF of more progress and less gunpowder.

Madam President, Mr Costa, what this meeting of the European Council brings us is of no use to us: indefinite continuation of the war in Ukraine, military spending increasing at the pace of NATO's war drums, endless money and facilities for the arms race, with the Omnibus package for the arms industry, as Mrs von der Leyen has insisted again today. Promises of more advantages for multinationals, with the deepening of the single market and more rules-relief and business-friendly measures, in contrast to the contempt for small and medium-sized enterprises. Absolute silence on wage increases, the fight against poverty, the response to the housing crisis and other problems that afflict peoples' lives; and a fake nuisance with the genocide of the Palestinian people, while the European Union maintains complicity with the genocidal, maintaining the Association Agreement with Israel. What the European Council points to is a path of war, confrontation, social regression and aggravation of injustices. The path people need is the opposite. It is a political investment in peace, in economic progress, in responding to the problems of peoples and development. This is the alternative path [...]

Mrs Temido, in addition to the issues you mentioned and with which we agree on the complicit silence of this meeting of the European Council with the genocide in Gaza, there is another aspect on which I would like to raise a question. It is because, both in the speeches by the President of the European Council, António Costa, and in the speeches by the President of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, which we have heard here today, we have heard a series of facilities aimed at the arms industry, at military spending, at the rhythm of the drums of NATO's war, a whole host of advantages and possibilities for increasing military spending, but not a word about wage increases, the response to the housing crisis, access to health, access to education, the fight against poverty (...)

Mrs Temido, in Gaza, Israel uses hunger as a weapon of war and murders adults and children at the point of distribution of food, and the pretext is the hostages taken by Hamas. In the West Bank, there are no hostages taken by Hamas. Israel persecutes, forcibly displaces refugees from refugee camps and murders Palestinians with its settlement policy. What's going on is genocide, it's ethnic cleansing. And while this happens, the European Union maintains the Association Agreement; continues to fund Israeli arms production companies through European science funds. And my question to you, honourable Member, is whether you see yourself in this policy of complicity of the European Union, or whether, on the contrary, you believe that the European Union should take firm action to pressure Israel to put an end to the genocide of the Palestinian people.

Mr Bugalho, you have just referred to the war crimes committed by Israel at food outlets, where adults and children are being murdered in cold blood. And the question I ask you is very direct: what else needs to come into our eyes to demand that the European Union suspend the Association Agreement with Israel? Mr President, there are no external committees, no assessments that can wipe out the responsibility and cruelty of what is being done in front of our eyes, of what has been happening in Gaza for 640 days. What else is needed to put an end to that Association Agreement?

Madam President, Mr Rasmus Andresen, I would like to ask you whether, from the point of view of the Greens, the Presidency programme that has been presented today really corresponds to the alternative that the peoples need. Is it possible to build the alternative people need by insisting on military spending, insisting on diverting budgetary resources to war, continuing the war in Ukraine indefinitely? Is it possible to build this alternative with the competitiveness packages that favour multinationals, but forget micro, small and medium-sized enterprises? Is it possible to build an alternative, disregarding the need to value and improve the living conditions of workers?

Madam President, against the danger of war, build peace solutions. Against the policy of confrontation, strengthen the ties of cooperation for the mutual benefit of the peoples. This should be the orientation for the development of relations with China and, of course, for the summit that is now taking place. The European Union should not be a sounding board for the US policy of confrontation and escalation of tensions, which points to China as its preferred target. The path has to be another: strengthen effective cooperative relations, in compliance with international law, including the principle of non-interference and respect for the one-China principle, without hesitation or distortion. To establish political, diplomatic, economic and cultural relations on mutually beneficial terms for the peoples and taking into account their needs. That path must be followed, while respecting the Member States’ own space for their own foreign policy and bilateral relations, in particular the relations between Portugal and China, deepening historical relations of friendship, peace and cooperation between the Portuguese and Chinese peoples.

Madam President, Commissioner Lahbib, deinstitutionalisation without decent employment and social protection means poverty and deinstitutionalisation without public services guaranteeing economic, social and cultural rights means abandonment and social exclusion. People with disabilities must be guaranteed the conditions for independent living. Whether they are adults or children, it is necessary to guarantee the conditions for this life to be truly independent. But this requires, in the first place, an employment policy with rights and social protection that guarantees everyone access to employment with fair wages, decent working and living conditions or social protection conditions, such as those so often lacking for children with disabilities. But this also requires an effective realization of economic, social and cultural rights through public services, to guarantee housing, transport, culture, health, the right to education. Without this, people with disabilities cannot be guaranteed a true independent life.