What Juan Fernando spoke about.

Mr President, Commissioner Dalli, the Chair of the Committee on Women's Rights, Robert Biedroń, brings this point to the European Parliament seeking inspiration to represent us all with dignity at the next session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. I believe that the voice that emerges with resolution from this debate in the European Parliament is clear and clear: equality of women is a matter of human rights and fundamental rights in the European Union. A society that fully guarantees them – which is the obligation of the European Union – is a society that is not only fairer and more equitable, but also more economically efficient and more socially prosperous. Equality of women in the European Union requires respect, not discrimination. It demands to overcome the wage gap definitively. It requires all women to be safe from all forms of violence. It demands freedom for women to develop their personality without being subjected to any prejudice or stereotype. And it also demands, of course, that we once and for all affirm that equality and non-discrimination are an absolutely fundamental issue. There is no more beautiful clause in European law than that which prohibits any form of discrimination on grounds of sex, gender or sexual orientation. It is Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Therefore, dear Robert Biedroń, there is your inspiration.

Mr President Angel, Commissioner Johansson, passing this European law on automated exchange of police data is a good opportunity to explain to the citizens we represent what the promise of the area of freedom, security and justice is, not only criminal judicial cooperation for the prosecution of crimes, but also police cooperation for the prevention, detection and investigation of crimes. There was a Prüm I that allowed the exchange of DNA databases, fingerprints and vehicle registrations. But now there is a Prüm II that extends not only the data that can be exchanged, but also includes a router that directly deposits that data in a database managed by the specialised agency eu-LISA. And this, in addition, with the guarantees of fundamental rights, which are always of concern to this European Parliament and, in particular, to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, under the supervision of the European Data Protection Supervisor. Prüm II is therefore good news not only for police cooperation in that area of freedom of justice and security, but also for the European citizens we represent.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President Schinas, of course we are concerned and motivated to talk about antisemitism in the European Parliament. This is a form of racist hatred against Jews that is deeply rooted in Europe and on which this European Parliament adopted a definition last parliamentary term – in June 2017 – clearly stating that antisemitism is incompatible with European values, as well as with fundamental rights and non-discrimination on any grounds, in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Antisemitism is therefore an old spectrum that runs across Europe and requires a strategic response from all European institutions.promoting Jewish life, there is no place for hatred—, in addition to European criminal law as regards hate speech, because hate speech is prone to hate crime and incites hate violence. And this deserves a criminal response, in addition to preventive and educational strategies. But, having said that, you yourself mentioned that, although the memory of the Holocaust was solemnly celebrated in this very Chamber only ten days ago, anti-Semitism continues to stigmatise Europeans, individuals and communities belonging to that factory of diversity, to this European Union united in diversity. But he also mentioned the date of 7 October, which reminds us that - of course - we condemn the Hamas attacks, - of course - we condemn their terrorism and - of course - we demand the unconditional release of the hostages. But, at the same time, we say that, if freedom of expression is legitimate, criticizing or demonstrating against the disproportion of the Netanyahu government's military response in Israel, there is nothing anti-Semitism about that criticism. There is certainly no such thing in the insecurity that the Jewish communities are suffering in all the Member States of the European Union and, therefore, they deserve us to raise our voices and say that the Jewish communities belong to this Union in the diversity that we all are.

Mr President, Commissioner Breton, one of the proclaimed objectives of this legislature – and we now say one of the achievements – was the Digital Agenda, with a European Digital Services Act aimed at imposing obligations and responsibilities on online platforms, including social media – Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter – to remove illegal content to the extent that their algorithms induce hate speech, hate crime and hate violence against individuals, groups, minorities or entire categories of people. But also, as highlighted in the Special Committee on Foreign Interference in All Democratic Processes in the European Union, in particular Disinformation (INGE), when they interfere in electoral processes threatening the integrity of the democratic values that the European Union has an obligation to defend. And this is what we have seen through the misinformation, the malinformation or the disinformation, They cause serious, serious and severe damage to the integrity and credibility of democratic processes. And now that the European elections on 9 June are near, it is essential that we complete this Digital Agenda with all the measures that go not only through the self-regulation of online platforms, nor through digital literacy, nor through criminal law in the case of violations, but also through a true strategy of cyber defence of democracy, which the European Commission has the obligation to share with this European Parliament so that the elections are not only participatory elections, but absolutely credible without any interference, without any interference from any foreign power.

Madam President Metsola, Mr President Iohannis, after listening to you with attention and respect, I want to share with you two positive messages. The first: I am sure you know how many of us in this European Parliament welcome the fact that, at last, during the Spanish Presidency at the end of December, restrictions were lifted for the full enjoyment of the Schengen area and, therefore, of the fundamental right to free movement at the sea and air borders to Romania and Bulgaria. He does not know how many times we have called for it in this European Parliament in a historic series of resolutions - the latest in 2022 and 2023 - since the Commission decided in 2011 that Romania and Bulgaria had passed the verification mechanism. Congratulations, therefore, Romanians and Bulgarians, who enjoy Schengen. And the second positive message is the recognition of European solidarity on the front line in the face of people displaced by Putin's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. At least three million, mostly women and children in vulnerable situations, have entered the European Union across Romania's borders. And at least 200 000 remain in Romania enjoying the Temporary Protection Directive, which means free movement without a visa, free choice of residence, access to the labour market and services associated with the labour market, as well as the rights to education and healthcare. Therefore, recognition is also given to this solidarity at the forefront of the Temporary Protection Directive. Only yesterday this European Parliament validated €1.5 billion for the Solidarity Fund and €1.5 billion to help immigration policy, which is a reinforcement for upholding the rights of people who have entered the European Union in search of protection through the Temporary Protection Directive.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President Schinas, this morning, two years after Putin’s brutal and illegal Russian aggression against Ukraine, we celebrated in this European Parliament the EUR 50 billion in aid to Ukraine, as well as the EUR 7 650 million for the neighbourhood, the EUR 2 billion for the European Defence Fund, the EUR 1.5 billion for solidarity helping those fleeing the war in Ukraine and the EUR 1.5 billion for the Asylum and Migration Fund, helping those benefiting from the Temporary Protection Directive. All of that is acting against Russia and its war. But, in addition, there is the so-called hybrid war, disinformation and, therefore, this Parliament has adopted the cybersecurity strategy, which makes the European Union stronger against disinformation and against foreign interference – particularly Russian - in the electoral processes, which we care so much about in terms of democratic quality in the European Union, as well as criminal measures for those who violate the restrictions imposed on Russia and its agents. Therefore, gentlemen of the Popular Party, it is really astonishing to see you divert attention from this sensitive matter, so important, once again, to mistreat the Government of Spain on account of a judicial investigation into the process, which took place while you were in government. They did nothing to prevent it or to prevent it. And at this point they have not yet been heard a single proposal to prevent it from happening again. So let's talk about Russia, its war against Ukraine and its hybrid war against democracy, its values and democratic participation and integrity, which is what really matters to us.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, a while ago in this plenary session of the European Parliament we discussed the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union and we pointed out, precisely, the concern that the safety of journalists, the situation of independence of the media and, above all, information pluralism raises among the Member States. And now we have exactly one point concerning a Member State of the European Union, Greece, where there was nothing less than the murder of an investigative journalist, Giorgos Karaivaz, yet to be clarified judicially. But, in addition, there are accumulated reports in the country reports of the Commission on the rule of law in Greece about abusive trials, insults, verbal assaults, arbitrary detentions and, above all, the use of the intrusive spyware Predator, ordered from offices linked to the Government of Greece, against information professionals and political opponents. How can we not express concern ... the battle for fundamental rights is fought everywhere, without any shadow of political bias. There's no scapegoat or conspiracy. We simply give a sign of commitment to the State of fundamental rights, which begins precisely with freedom of expression, the free communication of ideas, information pluralism and the independence of the media.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, since we launched the fundamental rights cycle in this legislature, the debate in this European Parliament on the resolution on your situation in the European Union – rapporteur for the 2022 and 2023 annual report – is a classic: Katarina Barley. Of the many points to which you have referred, I am left with two. One of them will be dealt with in this plenary session: the need for a plan to ensure the safety of journalists, in the face of intimidation, and also, of course, to guarantee information pluralism. And the second is very important because it has been present throughout the debate that has led to the agreement on the New Pact on Migration and Asylum finalized in December: the protection of the human rights of migrants and asylum seekers. Because the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union protects not only European citizens, but also any foreigner, migrant or asylum seeker under the application of European law, which guarantees their protection against arbitrary detention, against the violation of their rights, legal assistance, healthcare and, of course, in rescue and rescue operations at sea, which must be respectful of human rights, a coordinated mechanism. In 2023, 40 000 people arrived in Canarian waters, but 6 000 lost their lives in the attempt to reach the European Union. Migrants and asylum seekers in the European Union deserve something more and better, as well as full respect for their fundamental rights and human rights.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, I add my voice to this choral majority clearly expressed by the European Parliament which welcomed and supported the Commission's initiative to widen the list of EU crimes to hate speech and hate crime, to begin with, on its basis: It covers not only discrimination on grounds of sex or race but, as mandated by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on grounds of sexual orientation, age or disability and protects above all vulnerable individuals and groups, including minors, who are subjected, in particular on social media, to harassment and cyberbullying. From a clear beginning, no one who insults and slanders, perpetrates a crime, does it in real life, face to face, or does it on social networks does not exercise freedom of expression. The European Union cannot be exposed to haters, to those who hate everything we represent, everything that allows us to live together on the basis of respect. That is why this debate has one objective: call on the Council to take the decision – as the Treaty wants unanimously (Article 83) – so that we can finally create the European criminal law we need; and, as long as unanimity is not possible, to use the passerelle clause in the expectation that a reform of the Treaties will eliminate dysfunctional unanimity and allow decisions to be taken by qualified majority.

Mr President, Madam representative of the Council, Madam representative of the Commission, from the December Council conclusions I am left with the proclaimed will for the European Union to grow in order to be geopolitically relevant in the world. Firstly, in the face of migration, because there is no way to tackle illicit trafficking and deaths at sea if legal and safe routes to the Union are not agreed with the countries of origin and transit. But also, secondly, in relation to the cruel war of aggression being waged on Europe's borders, Putin's war against Ukraine, because aid to Ukraine now hangs on Orbán's blackmail at the helm of Hungary: eight years under Article 7, without the Council having had the courage to replicate the initiative of the European Parliament. It could take such a risky rule of law initiative so that Orbán does not get away with getting the money without complying with the rules of the rule of law by four-fifths – no unanimity is needed. In any case, what must be reformed is the decision-making rule, so that the unilateral veto of a blackmailer that prevents the European Union from fulfilling its purpose of being globally relevant is not possible.

Mr President, the fact that we are discussing in the European Parliament the resurgence of fascism in the light of a demonstration of that sign, no less than in Rome on 7 January, is saddening, but above all it is worrying. Because fascism is not an ideology; It is above all a violent, totalitarian action, moving from hate speech to hate crime. And that is exactly why it is a permanent threat to the European values that we have an obligation to defend. The Italian Constitution, in its twelfth provision, prohibits the reconstitution of the fascist party, as does Article 21 of the German Constitution. And there is a jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court that dissolved a Nazi party in the 1950s. Is that enough? Obviously it is not, because that threat will grow as long as there are political forces that we consider conventional that trivialize or normalize the Roman salute or the passage of the goose. Therefore, when we defend European citizenship, we are obliged to draw the lessons from history that are final and that turn the next European campaign of June 2024 into an opportunity for all European forces to say loud and clear that the lesson of history is "never again".never again», «nie wieder».

Mr President, Vice-President Šefčovič, after two years of hard work to organise and launch a Conference on the Future of Europe – with the broad participation of civil society in this very seat of the European Parliament – I find it impossible not to eagerly support an own-initiative report that wants to strengthen European citizenship, by systematising all the case-law of the Court of Justice into the highest standard in the world for the protection of citizenship rights, but also by removing the remaining obstacles to free movement, to same-sex couples, to the exercise of the right to vote depending on who does it and where and to consular protection. This is a report that also aims to eliminate visas and golden passports, the abuse of which undermines the principle of European citizenship, and to teach culture and history of Europe so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past – because the lessons are final – and that also allows to generate a feeling of belonging and inclusion of all European citizens in this great project that we share.

Madam President, Advocate O'Reilly, Vice-President Šefčovič, we support this own-initiative report because we support the performance of the European Ombudsman institution, which is marking doctrine, with its 348 reports in the course of 2022, against bad practices in the European administration – against delays, against the abuse of silences – and ensuring access to documents, transparency, a culture of public service and respect for the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter. That is why we are convinced that the institution we call ombudsmen u Ombudsperson plays a complementary role to that of the Court of Justice in ensuring respect for the law in the European Union. We therefore invite you to systematize and publish what we might call the Ombudsman's "ombudsmanship" in an ethical and effective administration in all the institutions of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner Reynders, this report on the transparency and accountability of non-governmental organisations financed from the Union budget coincides with the assessment and programmes that we have supported and promoted from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for non-governmental organisations, positively recognising their role, especially in the humanitarian field, when they act in the sensitive areas of migration and asylum. Of course, the vision is positive, not stigmatising, quite the opposite, and I believe that the non-governmental organisations that have added €3.7 billion in 2020-2022 have proven to be consistent with the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and are therefore in a position to also incorporate a detection system, with a unique identifier of the ultimate beneficiaries of grants – including those that are managed through contracting or subcontracting. We therefore welcome non-governmental organisations and recognise their role as an expression of civil society at European level, at the service of European values.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President Šefčovič, in the two years of Putin’s Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, a clear majority of this European Parliament has signalled its determination to support Ukraine from a humanitarian point of view – the Temporary Protection Directive – financially and also from an arms point of view. But critical voices are heard. They are not a majority, but the best way to defuse any persuasiveness of that criticism is the path that Prime Minister De Croo, representing the Belgian Presidency, again underlined this morning: a globally relevant European Union with a common foreign security and defence policy, which – when we move beyond this chronified military phase, which threatens a war of attrition and even exhaustion – will be able to know what the conditions will be for the European Union’s contribution to a peace acceptable to Ukraine. It is the only way out of this situation that causes unease and even despair in much of the European citizenry.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in this debate on an apparently obscure issue such as the accession of the European Union to international conventions, I have an extraordinarily important and yet still pending issue. The Treaty of Lisbon gives the European Union a single legal personality – Article 47 of the Treaty on European Union – and gives the European Parliament the final say on the entry into force of international conventions negotiated, by mandate of the Council, by the Commission. And yet, there is an unfulfilled mandate: the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights – Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. There was a negative opinion of the Court of Justice, no less than in 2013, a whopping eleven years ago. However, negotiations to overcome the objections raised in that opinion have not yet been concluded. And it remains essential to complete the circle of dialogue between human rights protection systems with the highest standard in the world – the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights – and of dialogue between courts – the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Until that outstanding issue is resolved, this European Parliament should not rest.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, in this debate on the evaluation of solidarity measures and corridors in favour of Ukraine following Putin’s war of aggression in Russia, it is relevant and necessary that the contribution of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs be highlighted, because we activate – we demand this – the Temporary Protection Directive, which means free movement and establishment and access to employment and all services linked to residence in the territory of the European Union for millions – more than four and a half million – of Ukrainians, who already belong to the European Union, live among us. In addition, we have strengthened Eurojust's cooperation with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to prevent impunity for war crimes. And, recently, one last achievement that deserves to be highlighted: Just yesterday, the conversion into a Eurocrime of the violation of the restrictive measures of the European Union imposed, precisely, to punish Russian economic and financial interests in the territory of the European Union, became permanent. This violation of restrictive measures is already a European crime and this has been achieved under the Spanish Presidency.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, once again Frontex – the European Border and Coast Guard Agency – in a debate with resolution in the plenary session of the European Parliament: a resolution resulting from the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group that we have launched in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, which has been precisely responsible for strengthening Frontex's mandate to become the giant agency of the European constellation, with a budget that has increased from 114 million to 800 million per year and with 10 000 uniformed officers with the right to bear arms. And we will not stop, in this Frontex scrutiny exercise, until we ensure that it fulfils its fundamental rights mandate by deploying its 40 officers under a Fundamental Rights Agency officer, including in cooperation with third countries and also in search and rescue operations. And we will not stop until there is no suspicion of improper handling of European funds, such as that which led by OLAF investigations to the resignation of its former director. And we are not going to stop until there is no credible information that continues to come from Frontex involvement in Frontex operations. pushbacks illegal returns, let alone cooperation with militias returning people apprehended on the high seas to unsafe countries. This is the European Parliament's commitment to the European Border and Coast Guard Agency.

Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Reynders, you know it and we Members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs know it: one of the great achievements of this legislature lies precisely in the consolidation of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights framework, which regularly scrutinises the 27 Member States with regard to their institutional or legislative developments where there is the least indication of concern for the European standard of democracy and the rule of law and judicial independence. No Member State is therefore free from this examination, and this puts a brake on the victimist rhetoric of those who were singled out by Article 7: to say that they were being pointed out by a double standard, supposedly, of the European Union. Now the object of concern is Slovakia, because it is taking a step in the wrong direction. In a country where there is a high rate of concern and perception of corruption, in addition to other problems such as discrimination against minorities – in the case of Slovakia, the Roma minority, which is certainly worrying – it turns out that it is now decided to close the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. When we see the light at the end of the tunnel in Poland, which even announces that it will sign the accession to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, Slovakia walks in exactly the opposite direction: close the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office. The message is clear. Therefore, this European Parliament says very clearly that the anti-corruption strategy is part of the framework of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights of the European Union and that what we are trying to do is to exert all the necessary pressure for Slovakia to renew its commitment to European values and not the opposite.

Mr President Karas, Commissioner Reynders, rapporteur María Leitão, either because of this regulation which creates a single European certificate of parenthood on a legal basis, which is a mandate of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Article 81, mutual recognition of legal documents in civil matters – and which serves the realisation of a fundamental right, not only the free movement of all persons without discrimination, but also the best interests of the child, enshrined as such in Articles 24 and 32 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The best interests of the child to be protected and regulated throughout the European Union, regardless of the family affiliation. To the extent that there is a person with all his or her fundamental rights in tow, he or she must have the right not only to free movement, but also to schooling, maintenance and succession on an equal basis with any other person, regardless of the family in which he or she enrolls. Therefore, no minor can be held responsible for his or her origin. Whether legally accepted in a legal order or not, he is a person with all his fundamental rights and, therefore, also with the right to enjoy free movement with a single European certificate of parenthood.

Madam President, Madam Vice-President Jourová, Commissioner Šuica, well done for this defence of democracy package! Because democracy can never be taken for granted, it must always be defended and reinforced. And that is what we have an obligation to do ahead of the 2024 elections. Firstly, by protecting it against foreign interference and manipulation and against hoaxes and fake news, but also by increasing participation ahead of the 2024 elections, not only with a clear message of promoting the electoral participation of people who may have mobility problems or people with disabilities, but also, above all, by establishing minimum standards of participation to combat, precisely, the decline in participation that the European elections suffered for forty years and from which we managed to bounce positively in 2019. Now it is a question of sharing good practices, a European network of electoral cooperation. It is about launching a plan to defend democracy with concrete initiatives that have an influence on the electoral participation that we expect in 2024. Above all, it is a question of protecting it against any form of interference from this increasingly contrived neighbourhood, which threatens the European Union and of which we are clearly aware in the Member States. But above all, we need to make the European Parliament that comes out of the 2024 elections exactly the representation of the reinforced European citizenship that we have an obligation to represent.

Madam President, either because of this constitutional report on the 2024 elections or because of the contributions of the rapporteur Domènec Ruiz Devesa, because it is, firstly, that the elections are more European, secondly, that this Parliament is more democratic and, thirdly, that the political process leading to the election of the Commission is more parliamentary. How will the election be more European? If the political parties applying for the European elections have incorporated the European logo and undertake to participate in a process of forming candidates at European level. What we've called the listhead system. This, together with increased participation – increasing the possibility for third-country residents and persons with disabilities to vote – will further strengthen the democratic legitimacy of this European Parliament, which was strengthened in the 2019 elections, after declining for 40 years since its first direct election in 1979. But above all the commitment to make the process more parliamentary is that this Parliament is decisive in the candidacy for the Presidency of the Commission so that the first force represented in this Parliament can present a candidacy and successively the political families can present a candidacy to the Council so that the Presidency of the Commission arises from the European Parliament.

Mr President, Commissioner, when in this European Parliament we are talking precisely about the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, it is good to highlight that in this legislature we have achieved nothing less than the European Union ratifying the Istanbul Convention, which is the great sign of commitment to the elimination of all forms of violence against women and created a common standard in Europe. Because there are Member States - and I say this with satisfaction - that stand out, like Spain, while others are further behind. But this must also be brought into contact with the legislative work we are doing: the update of the Victim Protection Directive and, of course, the Directive on combating violence against women, which has to be completed before the end of this mandate. And, in parallel, the update of the Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, which seeks to point the way for Member States to sanction all forms of consumption of victims of trafficking and exploitation not only in labour, but also in sex, with a clear message to the landscape of prostitution that rages throughout the European Union against victims of trafficking, an area in which the European Union has to legislate with great determination. And I conclude by saying that this work is expressive of a commitment still pending: complete accession to the European Convention on Human Rights so that we can state very clearly that any form of discrimination and violence against women is a form of human rights violation.

Mr President, Commissioner Reynders, when you heard in this European Parliament a polyphony of voices from different parliamentary groups, the conclusion is that you actually heard a symphony with essentially the same score. After a year of work in the Committee of Inquiry into the Pegasus programme and the conclusions adopted by this European Parliament, it is only possible to legislate to infer the consequences and establish a common standard that prohibits the use of spyware that violates fundamental rights, without further ado, and particularly its use in a perverse way to persecute political opponents, human rights activists, lawyers or opponents of governments, as we know has happened in Member States of the European Union. We want a common national security standard so that this concept cannot be invoked in vain in order to suppress fundamental rights to privacy of communications and confidentiality of personal data. Let us therefore get to work as soon as possible, because it is absolutely urgent for European legislation to ensure that the Committee of Inquiry into the Pegasus programme, with its conclusions, has actually served to improve the level of protection of the fundamental rights of Europeans.

Mr President, Commissioner Reynders, European Parliament, the Spanish People's Party has covered itself with failure in the attempt to invest its candidate for the Presidency of the Government before the Congress of Deputies. Not content with that bitter taste of mouth, he tries to refresh it here in this Parliament with a forced debate on a legitimate initiative adopted under the Spanish Constitution. A proposition of organic law in which there is no shadow of judicial control, nor lawfare, and no commissions of inquiry. A carefully articulated proposal to overcome the review of constitutionality that - with certainty - the Popular Party will waste through direct appeal and questions of unconstitutionality and also preliminary questions before the Court of Justice of the European Union, because it excludes financial crimes of the Union. Let everyone know: in this organic law or proposal, there is no threat to the rule of law or democracy in Spain, nor to the legislative procedure. Except for the filibuster exercise of unilateral reform with an absolute majority in the Senate of the Popular Party to try to hinder its parliamentary process, contrary to the emergency rules described in Article 90 of the Spanish Constitution. There is no threat to judicial independence in Spain other than the rude and contumaz blockade of the General Council of the Judiciary by the Popular Party until nausea, five years expired on the sole responsibility of the Popular Party. Therefore, let everyone know that we are facing a singular law, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court to address an exceptional crisis that took place during the time of the Popular Party's government, which was not able to avoid it or subsequently adequately defend the constitutional reputation of Spain, the same one that you now attack tirelessly and relentlessly. And I tell the People's Party to let its frustration supposing to the point of feeding the rage of those who demonstrate before the headquarters of the Socialist Party with swastikas and Nazi salutes, because that is the absolute negation of European values and the rule of law that we represent. "How Democracies Die" is the title of a more quoted essay I've read. They die when the legitimacy of the alternative is denied, when the possibility is denied for others to obtain – in accordance with constitutional procedures – the absolute majorities with which to be invested and reach the Government in parliaments democratically elected by popular sovereignty. That's how democracies die. Gentlemen of the People's Party, let me tell you that the People's Party is not in the Government, let everyone know, because it has not been able to agree but with its detachment from the extreme right. And you know why? Because an absolute majority of the Congress of Deputies has decided that it cannot aspire to govern Spain who neither understands it, nor accepts it, nor loves it – no matter how full its mouth – as it really is: plural, much more diverse and much more plural than is possible in the Popular Party... (the Chair took the floor from the speaker).