Speeches

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.

Mr President, Commissioner Albuquerque, this report on the financial activities of the European Investment Bank is in line with the political objectives of the European Union and therefore supports wrong choices that disregard the needs of the peoples and does not indicate the path that should be followed to meet those needs. EIB financing for the military industry is already around EUR 1 billion, but the report focuses on strengthening the EIB's role in military investments, including with the smoke screen which is the dual-use clause, the revision of which already allows investments in goods predominantly for military purposes. On the contrary, there is, for example, no requirement for the EIB, together with national promotional banks, to be a bank to promote more public investment in areas that promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, supporting the productive sectors of the Member States or addressing, for example, problems such as housing. Funding is needed to ensure construction at controlled housing costs, public investment in expanding public housing supply to ensure a response to the housing crisis. But there is no intention to point out the path that the EIB should follow and the contribution it should make to these objectives.

Madam President, the European Parliament cannot remain silent in the face of measures that undermine rights, freedoms and guarantees, which undermine democracy and seek to condition political action, including the action of Members of this Parliament. That is the situation in the Czech Republic, where there is an unacceptable campaign of persecution against the Czech Communists and which is aimed at conditioning, or even preventing, the activity of the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia. This is the intention of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to ban what it calls the promotion of the communist movement, which can only merit the most vivid denunciation and repudiation. From this we express our solidarity with the Czech Communists and other democrats and patriots and call on the authorities of the Czech Republic to respect democratic freedoms and rights.

Mr President, Commissioner Zaharieva, in Portugal, in the municipality of Évora, a project is currently under way for the installation of a mega photovoltaic plant which will occupy 1500 hectares, with 1 600 000 solar panels, destroying agricultural, landscape, environmental and natural and archaeological heritage resources. This is a terrible example of the way in which energy policy choices are conducted, i.e. according to the interests of the market, the profits of the large multinational companies that make profits in the energy sector, disregarding and disregarding the interests of the people, the development of the territories, cohesion. This is an absolutely blatant example of the wrong direction in which the European Union's energy policy choices go, whether in relation to electricity grids or in relation to the issues of generation, distribution and marketing. Commissioner, the people are not being heard, they are not taking part in this process, and their opinion is not being taken into account. Complaints have also been addressed to the European Commission and calls for it to intervene in this process. Therefore, the appeal we make here in relation to this process is to intervene, but above all to ensure that the political guidelines are different, that they truly serve the interests of peoples and peoples.

Mr President, Mr González, you told us about the blackout and you told us that the problem is not renewable energy, and indeed it is not. Because the problem that caused the blackout could be caused either by energy produced from renewable sources or by any other source. There is a problem that is the non-diversification of the sources that power the production of electricity, because the market criteria determine that this is the case. The question I want to ask you is this: can the grids and the electricity generation and distribution system continue to be determined by market criteria or should they be geared to the needs of the population and the needs of economic production? Because if those were the criteria, possibly even from the point of view of network security, we would be more safeguarded.

Mr President, Commissioner Kallas, NATO is the most dangerous instrument available to US imperialism to maintain its hegemonic dominance by the force of war and destruction. NATO is the greatest threat to world peace. The European Union's choice to constitute itself as the European pillar of NATO confirms its militaristic nature and shows its complicit and subservient alignment with this warmongering and aggressive strategy of the United States. NATO represents a project of destruction and death that is contrary to the interests of the peoples and that sacrifices the resources that should be destined for the improvement of their living conditions. People want peace, they want better living conditions, they want decent work and wages, education, health, housing. NATO and investment in militarism and the arms race mortgage all this. Taken together, NATO accounts for more than half of the world's military spending and now wants to go even further, earmarking 5% of each country's GDP for militarism, armaments and war. There is an urgent need for an international order of peace, sovereignty and social progress, for the collective security of Europe, based on the principles of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference and the Charter of the United Nations.

Mr President, Mrs Ana Miguel Pedro, how can you think that the future of the peoples can be war? That the future of our young people can be death and destruction? How can you come to defend investment in militarism and the arms race, thinking that this does not add dangers of war, that it does not add dangers of military conflicts, of particularly catastrophic dimensions, considering the capacity for destruction, especially at the nuclear level, that exists today? How can she tell the young people in Portugal that the only future they can look to is a future of concern, without knowing what war they will have to be pushed to die for? Madam Commissioner, militarism and war are not a future for any people, nor are they a future for the Portuguese people.

Mr President, Mrs Kallas, anyone who is aware of a shred of humanism is outraged by what has been happening in Gaza for 620 days. The images of the killings of children at the so-called food outlets, which Israel has installed in conjunction with the United States, are just one last example of the barbarism that Israel raises to levels we thought we would never see again. With the complicity of the United States and the powers of NATO and the European Union, Israel massacres, humiliates and dehumanises, imposing with impunity the most indescribable atrocities on the Palestinian people. And now it is also bombing Iran, bringing the escalation of war in the Middle East to a more serious level with unpredictable consequences. There is no shred of shame in the European Union to deter you from complicit indifference to genocide, to put an end to your hypocrisy and to living with Israel's political criminal. For our part, we join in solidarity with the Palestinian people and their legitimate national cause. Suspend the agreement with Israel. Stop funding Israel's crimes. They are imposing an arms boycott on Israel. Recognize the State of Palestine as determined by UN resolutions. They comply with international law.

Mr President, Mr Sérgio Humberto, an absolutely essential aspect of the quality of the public transport service is the appreciation of workers, their careers, their professions, their working conditions and, of course, also their salaries. Whether it is rail, road, inland waterway or maritime transport, competitiveness does not depend on the valorisation of workers or their rights. In fact, the government you support in Portugal has recently set a good example of this, devaluing the needs of rail workers. My question to you is this: how is it possible to reconcile this criterion of competitiveness with the necessary upgrading of workers, also in this transport sector?

Mr President, Mr Gonçalves, the honourable Member has spoken here of good intentions with regard to transport policy, but this debate we are having is about a communication which deals with public transport services according to the criterion of competitiveness and not the mobility needs of the population. That criterion of competitiveness is the criterion which guarantees funding for the trans-European transport networks, but no longer allows investment support for local transport. It is the criterion that prevents the approval, for example, of a POSEI Transport for the Autonomous Regions and for the response to the populations of the Autonomous Regions and that does not consider investment support for increasing the supply of timetables and the quality of public transport, so that people do not have to be transported as if they were canned sardines. Much less, of course, do you want to hear about workers' rights, particularly in the transport sector. My question to you is this: how can the needs of people and their right to mobility be reconciled with a transport approach based on this criterion?

Madam President, Mr Cunha, the European Union's complicity in the genocide of the Palestinian people at the hands of Israel is incompatible with the proclamations defending the rule of law. And the question we ask is: Where is respect for human dignity, democracy, freedom and human rights when you are complicit in the genocide that Israel is carrying out against the Palestinian people? How is it possible for the European Union to proclaim the defence of the rule of law while keeping political, economic and financial relations untouched? The European Union must look to itself and to that complicity which de facto calls into question the proclamations of the defence of the rule of law.

Madam President, Mr Ressler, one of the main problems with the RRF is the deadline. The deadline for the end of the RRF will not allow a good part of the funds to be used and a significant part of the projects that were under consideration to be implemented. The report presents a proposal for an additional 18 months for projects with some maturity. It seems to us a timid proposal, so we have put forward a proposal to extend the deadline until 2028. Does your political group agree with this extension of the deadline or do you prefer to lose the RRF funds?

Mr President, Commissioner Kadis, the Ocean Pact is yet another EU strategy that adds little to what already exists beyond the usual propaganda in this type of instrument. Unsurprisingly, the ocean will continue to be a garbage dump for competitiveness, major economic interests, market liberalisation, with the prominent and perverse example of the carbon market. The preservation of the oceans requires the consideration of their resources in the balanced relationship between environmental preservation and the satisfaction of social needs, removing profit from the equation. It demands respect for the sovereign path of development that best serves each people. It requires funds that do not exist today to leverage this path of development, because the EU's options are geared towards war and bombs and not to serve the peoples. It requires, in the case of Portugal, the valorisation of traditional sectors, in addition to the development of emerging sectors. Valuing small-scale coastal and artisanal fishing, renewing fleets, dignifying professions, increasing fishing incomes in the value chain, defending and promoting shipbuilding and ship repair, resuming public control of ports – none of this is taken into account in this Pact, which does not defend either the oceans or the interests of the peoples.

Madam President, Mr Nascimento Cabral, this announcement of the Oceans Pact risks adding little to what already exists, beyond the usual propaganda associated with these instruments. Therefore, I would like to ask you – and even starting from the specific situation of Portugal – what specific measures can result from this Ocean Pact? With regard to the need to enhance small-scale coastal and artisanal fishing, the renewal of fleets and the promotion of shipbuilding and ship repair, what concrete measures can be taken under this Pact, specifically targeted at the reality of Portugal? And, by the way, with what money? Because here too there is a lack of money which, unfortunately, in the European Union budget is diverted to militarism and war.

Madam President, Commissioner Brunner, we must spare no effort in the fight against child sexual abuse. This fight requires much more than criminal measures. The proposal for a directive that we discussed focuses on criminal measures to combat abuse after it has occurred and ignores measures to prevent abuse. We need prevention measures that guarantee the proper and safe functioning of institutions and spaces for the socialization of children, be they crèches, schools, sports or cultural associations. We need sex education and appropriate accompanying measures for the health and well-being of children and their social and family integration, as well as training for the prevention and early detection of abuse. In criminal matters, the measures to be taken should fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States. The proposed Directive risks being ineffective by focusing only on increasing penalties, by dismantling relevant national criminal law rules and by failing to strengthen tools to combat the dissemination of child sexual abuse material and its exploitation for sexual purposes. We need better solutions than those proposed.

Mrs Ana Miguel Pedro, you spoke about the various contexts in which situations of child abuse occur. The first question I wanted to ask you has to do precisely with that. Does it not seem to you that this requires much more than criminal measures to increase penalties? Does this not seem to you to require preventive measures to ensure the proper and safe functioning of institutions and spaces where children are socialised, be they nurseries, schools, sports or cultural associations? Does it not think that, even in criminal matters, greater effectiveness should be ensured in combating child abuse, for example by combating the dissemination of images of child sexual abuse content, rather than focusing the whole response on increasing penalties?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, housing is a priority in responding to people's problems and the European Union needs to take the necessary measures so that there are solutions at national level to increase the public supply of housing, protect tenants, combat property speculation, ensure that the necessary investment is mobilised so that homes that are vacant – State-owned real estate – can be allocated to the objective of housing, which is so much needed by the peoples of the European Union area. In Portugal, these needs are also felt in an absolutely urgent and immediate way. However, what we see on the part of the European Union are options in the opposite direction, which, moreover, encourage states and governments to make exactly the opposite choices. The proposed 2026 budget of the European Union does not take the priority of housing, but allows for the diversion of budgetary resources towards militarism and war. The mid-term review of cohesion policies did not prioritise housing, but allowed the use of cohesion funds for the purpose of militarism and war. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Portuguese Government now wants to spend in 2025 three times the military spending, three times the funds that were initially foreseen for housing in the RRP. Those are the wrong options...

Mr President, Commissioner Fitto, the day we debate this report on the importance of cohesion policy for rural areas is precisely the day when the Committee on Budgets has just voted on amendments to the regulations for the European cohesion policy funds, namely the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, which now have militarism as their specific objectives. Military mobility in the Union has become one of the objectives for the use of cohesion funds. And we ask: How can military mobility contribute to the development of rural areas? Militarism does not serve cohesion policy, nor does it serve rural areas and their specific needs, nor does it serve sectoral policy objectives that run counter to this discussion we are having here today. When the European Union finances the development of the Trans-European Transport Network, as it is currently doing in Portugal, on the Sines-Caia link, but disregards the need for investment in the use of the rail link for the populations of those regions, it is not contributing to cohesion or to the development of rural areas. These are sectoral policy objectives that need to be considered as well.

Madam President, Mr Rodrigues, the honourable Member has referred to several important aspects of this report, but I would like to ask him about other aspects that go in the negative direction. Firstly, I would like to ask you how the development of rural areas is supported by placing this focus on militarism – which also appears in this report with the reference to the importance of military mobility; take a good look at: military mobility as a relevant aspect from the point of view of cohesion and addressing the needs of rural areas! On the other hand, I would also like to know how all these objectives are combined with sectoral policies in transport and energy, which then go in exactly the opposite direction, as is the case, for example, with the trans-European transport networks, which completely disregard the mobility of people in rural areas. How can all this be reconciled, honourable Member?

Madam President, Commissioner Kos, the war has been raging in Ukraine for more than 11 years. Reality shows that dialogue is urgent; a dialogue for a political solution to the conflict, a dialogue addressing the problems of collective security and disarmament in Europe, a dialogue aimed at compliance with the principles of the UN Charter and the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference. The resumption of dialogue between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul is an important step. It should contribute to advancing a negotiating process that addresses the causes of the conflict and paves the way for a just and lasting peace in Europe. The United States, NATO and the European Union must put an end to the manoeuvres aimed at prolonging the war and obstructing a political solution to the conflict. We must stop insisting on confrontation and the mobilisation of billions for armaments and war – resources that are lacking and are being taken away from cohesion, wages, health, education, housing, finally, the response to people's problems. We must stop this road to the precipice and place peace as the true future of humanity.

Mr Blaha, I have listened carefully to your speech and I would like to ask you a question. After all the speeches we have heard throughout this debate have expressed concern about the loss of human lives, about the destruction of Ukraine, the question I want to ask you is simple: do you really think that the European Union and its institutions are committed to a solution of collective peace and security, not only in Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe? Do you think that when the institutions of the European Union point out the path of militarism, the arms race, the strengthening of confrontational measures, that is indeed the path of peace? Or, on the contrary, is the European Union encouraging war to continue indefinitely?