Speeches

Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Madam President of the Commission, in the conclusions of the Conference on the Future of Europe, there is one that coincides with an old aspiration of the Socialist Group of this European Parliament: to put an end to the vetoes of unanimity in any decision that does not concern constitutional aspects, common values, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and enlargement. Does unanimity on energy make sense? Does unanimity on taxation make sense? And, above all, does unanimity make sense to veto the access to the Schengen area of Bulgaria and Romania? We welcome Croatia's accession, but it is an injustice that Bulgaria and Romania continue to be prevented from fully enjoying Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: freedom of movement. And that injustice requires political action. And this Parliament wants to support any political and judicial action that wants to repair it because otherwise we are feeding exclusively Euroscepticism and Europhobia, anti-European attitudes, in two Member States. It cannot be that two Member States out of 27 have vetoed two Member States that have long complied with the technical and political criteria that have been required of them. It is therefore time to redress that injustice with any political and judicial action available to the Commission.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, for many years this European Parliament has done everything in its power, with all the instruments at its disposal, to defend Schengen, to protect Schengen against arbitrary restrictions and contrary to the measures of necessity and the time limit indicated by the Court of Justice, and to protect Schengen by wanting Schengen to be completed at once with the Member States we miss: Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria. The decision of the Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs opens the door to Croatia. We welcome it, but we say that we have an obligation to use all legal and judicial measures at our disposal to challenge the injustice of the exclusion of Romania and Bulgaria. And I add that this shows that Bulgaria has been excluded by a country of the 27 and both Bulgaria and Romania by two countries of the 27, which clearly tells us that, in a reform of the Treaties, we have to end unanimity as a decision-making criterion when it produces injustices as glaring as this one, which denies full access to the realization of a fundamental right, that enshrined in Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – free movement – to the citizens of Romania and Bulgaria, whom we miss in Schengen.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, this European Parliament was the first Parliament in the world to legislate for the criminal and procedural protection of whistleblowers. This European Parliament has legislated harshly and in a way that is binding on all Member States against all forms of corruption and laundering. That is why this Parliament must be rigorously united, unbroken, in condemning the corrupt and the corrupt, in cooperating with justice during an ongoing investigation and in its willingness to draw the inescapable lessons. But it also needs to remain united and seamless in defending its integrity and transparency – in fact, it is the most accessible and transparent Parliament in the world. Similarly, it must be united in condemning anyone who, by his actions and criminal responsibility, demonstrates that he was never worthy of the trust that is gained in order to have access to the right, duty and dignity to represent European citizens in this Parliament.

Madam President, Putin’s unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine has required this European Parliament to adopt a whole range of measures, both to prevent impunity for war crimes and to adopt restrictive measures against Russia, its agents and accomplices, including a ban on Russian ships calling at EU ports. But it is reasonable that the Commission should assess, in so far as the conflict continues, the sustainability of those measures which may have an impact on a worsening of the supply crisis and the food crisis, particularly in the countries most in need of food supplies, such as, of course, those on the African continent. I am referring to measures relating to strategic ports – such as the Port of Las Palmas – which, in so far as Russian vessels – which supply pelagic fishing that contributes to the food diet of the African continent – can no longer land, equip themselves, let alone repair themselves in strategic ports such as that port, in order to supply food to Africa, can therefore increase the food crisis on the African continent. It is good that the Commission assesses the consequences of its decisions so that we are able to modulate them, if necessary, in order to prevent the food crisis on the African continent from continuing to worsen.

Madam President, Commissioner Dalli, when we talk about equal rights with people with disabilities, we are talking about fundamental rights and the Charter that protects them, Article 21, which prohibits any form of discrimination against them and Article 26, which orders the European Union to promote and fully integrate them. This is the point of this report by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, whose rapporteur is Mrs Pelletier. A European Card that eliminates national differences and points out the problems of discrimination faced by people with disabilities. The promotion of their political participation, their access to health care, the prohibition of any form of violence or forced practice against them. And finally, this shows that, by promoting the rights of persons with disabilities, we are not only aiming at their rights as individuals, we are aiming at the betterment and transformation of the whole of European society and that of the Member States. But this debate will not be complete if we do not point out that the directive on equal treatment, which has been blocked by the Council for a whopping 10 years, is still pending. It's absolutely inconceivable. I therefore believe that this is an objective to which the Commission should aim: that the Equal Treatment Directive complements the work that this European Parliament is doing to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities.

Mr President, Commissioner Dalli, what are we talking about when we ask the Commission to take an initiative to legally protect rainbow families? To adopt a regulation on filiation and a regulation on the recognition of families founded by persons of the same sex. Because we are talking about fundamental rights. The first, free movement and choice of residence – Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – but without discrimination, prohibited on grounds of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Prohibition especially demanding when it comes to children's rights, which in no case can be discriminated against because of their origin or their filiation. It is therefore urgent to demand that all Member States protect children without discrimination in their national law and therefore guarantee them access to an identity and comply with the judgments of the Court of Justice, which are final: 2018, recognition of same-sex marriages and their right to move freely without discrimination, and 2021, right to parenthood of children without any discrimination.

Mr President, Vice-President Schinas, Commissioner Johansson, migration, asylum, rescue and rescue have a common denominator. They are indeed a European question that requires a European answer and there is only one European answer, a European solution, as the title of this debate suggests. It's within our reach to give it to him. The New Pact on Migration and Asylum – five Regulations: We are working and we can get them completed in this legislature. For that we have established the road map. But this Parliament has repeatedly subscribed to a comprehensive, holistic – we call it – comprehensive view of the problem, including rescue and rescue. legal pathways, legal and safe pathways. Rescue and rescue is an obligation of international law, not only of international humanitarian law, which of course, but of the international law of the sea codified in Montego Bay in 1982. And therefore it cannot be overlooked that a Member State fails to comply with its obligations under international law, which are the source of European law, because that goes against European law, including safe-port disembarkation. But having said that, there is also, of course, to secure legal avenues because it is the best way to save lives at sea. It is true that the Mediterranean and the Atlantic are indeed mass graves, but so is the Sahara desert and, therefore, the opening of safe roads is a way of dismantling the business model of human traffickers. It is also a way of saving the negative vision that has so far characterized the European Union. And this is the last point I would like to share with you. We have to change our eyes. This Parliament has demanded it. The European Union is called the old continent. The threat is not migration. The threat is to be an old continent. Migration can be part of the solution if we are able to change our eyes and have a more positive attitude, which is what this European Parliament demands again and again.

Madam President, no, this is not the first time that this European Parliament has discussed the unacceptable human rights situation under the Islamic Republic of Iran. But let's face it, we had never seen a rebellious explosion of courage like the one we have seen since the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of the "morality police" on September 16. We've seen demonstrations. We have also seen a balance of more than 300 dead - according to any objective report - and close to 20,000 arrested, including, by the way, two Spaniards, a man and a woman. A European Parliament resolution is not going to end the Iranian regime, is it? But it can be a wake-up call, not just to the European Union’s external action, with all its influence –hard power—, and of the Member States to combine forces to demand immediately the release of all those detained, the prohibition of all forms of torture and ill-treatment and, of course, of the death penalty inflicted on those people who fight for freedom and who have all the support under that slogan that we have chanted this afternoon in English: ‘Woman, life, freedom’.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, this Parliament welcomes this revision of the directive on strengthening infrastructure and critical entities, which is part of strengthening the security of Europeans in the face of hybrid attacks, which were dramatically highlighted during Putin's war against Ukraine, and which extends the security of Europeans, beyond energy and transport, to other affected sectors, such as banking, such as digital infrastructure and, of course, food supply and, above all, health and public health data. But allow me one further remark: Now that this European Parliament is 70 years old, which is an age at which one normally retires or accesses a pension, this Parliament has the best reason to feel younger than ever and, therefore, it is also important to modernise the language. When we talk about resilience, critical entities, are we telling Europeans clearly what it is about? My answer is no. We can be much more graphic and effective if we tell them that we are strengthening their security against sabotage and attacks on people's privacy and privacy, and that we are better protecting their fundamental rights in the world in which we live.

Madam President, last week, at the European Parliament in Brussels, the Conference of the Outermost Regions of the European Union took place, at which the Canary Islands received the presidency's witness for next year 2023. And the conference has two fundamental objectives. The first is to coordinate the action of island and remote regions themselves in the defence of their interests. But the second is to ensure that the European response itself is strengthened while respecting the specificities enshrined in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. These include the follow-up to the Commission’s strategy for the outermost regions for the period 2021-2025, which aims to take advantage of the opportunities and synergies of the outermost regions to become champions of the green economy, the blue economy and the circular economy, but without forgetting their traditional sectors, such as agriculture and tourism. Canary Islands is a candidate to host the European tourism agency and it is the first time that a European agency could be based in an outermost region with the unanimous support of the outermost regions themselves. We hope that the Commission will adopt the initiative as soon as possible and that the Canary Islands will succeed.

Madam President, Commissioner, 12 years ago FIFA decided that the 2022 World Cup would take place in Qatar. Is it or is it not a sad paradox that, now that this championship starts, the debate on the situation of labor rights, human rights, the principle of non-discrimination against women, against the LGTBI collective ... is more heated than ever? It is. This Parliament cannot review FIFA's decision. Nor can this Parliament demand that any cooperation relationship between the European Union and a third country be based on the requirement that that third country observe our same standards of fundamental rights. But what this Parliament can and does do is demand that the relationship of association and cooperation be conditioned on tangible progress in labour rights, human rights, non-discrimination against women and the LGBTI community and, hopefully, on improving freedom of criticism and, of course, on the prohibition of torture and the death penalty. And this is the meaning of this debate. The Commission has taken the initiative to amend the Regulation establishing visa-free states for entry into the European Union on the basis of reciprocity. This Parliament is convinced that visa-free travel is good because it encourages, precisely through exchange, the improvement of human rights and freedoms. But it also requires that this European Parliament be regularly informed on an annual basis of its tangible progress on labour rights, human rights, non-discrimination and the prohibition of torture and the death penalty.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, this European Parliament, no less than six years ago, took the initiative to initiate the sanction procedure referred to in Article 7, considering that, even then, the government headed by Viktor Orbán in Hungary indicated a clear risk of a serious and systemic violation of the fundamental values of the European Union. And since then it has only worsened the deterioration of freedom of expression, respect for information pluralism, respect for minorities and respect for political pluralism and, of course, the assault on the independence of the judiciary and the prosecution service. But this discussion is not about the rule of law, it is about the Conditionality Regulation that this European Parliament adopted as a binding law for the Member States and which, therefore, conditions access to European funds on compliance with the rules of the rule of law. The aim is not to sanction governments, nor, of course, to sanction the Hungarian people. The purpose is to protect the financial interests of the Union. It is not freezing funds, it is ensuring transparency in the handling of the Union's financial interests. And it turns out that the Commission imposes seventeen conditions from which the Orbán Government still only seems to have implemented the respect of three. And those measures will require, in any case, time for their implementation. I can therefore only endorse the opinion of the negotiating team, which points out that there is no reason why the European Commission should indeed allow the Hungarian Government access to European funds and the Recovery Fund for an amount of no less than EUR 7 500 000 000. There's a lot of work to be done. He has not done his homework and, therefore, there is only one conclusion: it is not appropriate to lift the conditionality of access of funds to compliance with the rules of the rule of law.

Mr President, Commissioner Dalli, this debate on racial justice and the European strategy and plan against all forms of discrimination and racism is very well brought about, as is the presentation by our colleague Evin Incir. You said it, racism has no place in Europe and there is a European plan against racism and discrimination 2020-2025 that includes an anti-racism coordinator; So far it shows the worrying balance that only 12 Member States have submitted their plans and we have a very considerable number that have not yet shown that commitment. The other day we were debating in the European Parliament the growth of the far right and one of its most distinctive features: hate speech that leads to hate crime. That is why I would like to point out that, in addition to investing the necessary funds to support this plan, it is imperative that the commitment to - on the legal basis of Article 83 - include hate crime in the list of Eurocrimes is fulfilled. Hate crime: European crime incorporated into the Criminal Code of all Member States.

Mr President, in this European Parliament we are all aware that the Council is facing very difficult decisions to respond to the energy supply crisis and to the increase in its costs for businesses and families. However, that cannot make us forget or neglect the need, which stems from the abrupt breakdown of all forms of cooperation with Russia, to support sectors that depend not only on energy supply but also on connectivity through ports and airports, as is clearly the case for sectors that depend on tourism. Nor can it make us neglect the need for us, while maintaining unity in the non-acceptance of travel documents issued in the occupied territories, to provide the humanitarian protection and asylum that children and vulnerable persons from those occupied territories may demand.

Madam President, the branding of Putin's Russia as a threat to peace and security in Europe has forced quite a number of Member States to review their own record of political, diplomatic, strategic and energy relations with Putin's Russia, but this is not the case with Belarus. No one has been deceived. Everyone knows that it is the longest-lasting dictatorship in Europe. He has been in an increasingly repressive power for 30 years, falsifying elections, and therefore constitutes, to begin with, a threat to Belarusian citizens themselves, who deserve all the solidarity of the European Union. That is our first task, but no one can ignore that considering Belarus also as an aggressor of Ukraine and, therefore, considering it a differentiated and complementary actor of Russia in the war against Ukraine, is a decision that has strategic implications that must be highly weighed, because it means – let's face it – an internationalization of the war, which we call "Putin's war", to involve a third actor that, formally, remains an independent sovereign state. Russia has recently been expelled from the Council of Europe. Belarus was never in the Council of Europe. He was never admitted as a partner of the Law and Peace Community in Europe. Therefore, identifying Belarus as an aggressor of Ukraine is a strategic decision that has to be weighed against all its consequences.

Mr President, just as there are people who think that populism is too generic a formula that requires national conclusions, there are those who say that the extreme right also requires a detailed examination, which is not the same as the one that reaches the government in Italy as the one that does it in Sweden. And yet they exhibit common traits: the first is reactionary nationalism, prone to embarking on cultural and identity wars and therefore directly contrary to diversity, which is the constitutive value of the European Union; the second, its rabidly ancient character, which confronts it both with feminism and with the movements it considers progressive, because they are based precisely on the exaltation of the value of equality; But above all, the most worrying feature, because it leads to the conclusion that it is rightly anti-European, is that it practices language that links hate speech, which history shows is prone to hate crime. We have discussed, in this session, the infamous murder in Bratislava, by a far-right gunman, of two people discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. So it must be said that, when a crime is committed against immigrants, it is no other ideology, it is always the extreme right, and that is directly anti-European. And so the conclusion is clear: Any form of political collaboration with the far right cannot be whitewashed, because it ends up being a form of complicity with hate crimes. Hate crimes that can never be underestimated or trivialized.

Madam President, the debate is now drawing some clear conclusions. The first is that decoupling gas from the final price of electricity means, let's face it, that what was once called the Iberian exception becomes the general rule of the European Union. The second is that catching gas to protect European consumers from inflation involves intervening in a market that does not work. The third is that, when we talk about increasing the energy and strategic autonomy of the European Union, this implies a joint purchase, a strategy of joint purchase of gas and supplies of a European scope. But there is a fourth one, and that is that, when we talk about Putin as a threat - which he is for the European Union as a whole - we have to do retrospective self-criticism, because some Member States have indeed fed that threat for too long, which at the moment acts on the level of disinformation, on the attack on critical infrastructures, but, above all, is an ally of the extreme right, of nationalism... (The Chair took the floor from the speaker).

Madam President, Commissioner Johansson, since the start of Putin's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine in February of this year, this European Parliament has done everything to support all the actions taken by the European Union to respond. Noting, first of all, that it is a gigantic, direct neighbour of the European Union – the Russian Federation – a direct border of the European Union in the three Baltic Republics, in Finland and in Poland, in the Kaliningrad enclave. Secondly, on the humanitarian front, with the Temporary Protection Directive, but also by adopting sanctions against the assets of Russian oligarchs and confiscating their assets and, of course, by adopting legislative measures such as the reform of the Eurojust Regulation, precisely to support the joint investigation teams and the investigation undertaken by the Prosecutor's Office of the International Criminal Court of war crimes, even knowing that Russia is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court. But considering Russia as a state that directly finances or supports terrorist activities on European soil requires that the European Union frames it within an expression of a will to mature quickly in its common foreign and security policy and in its common defence policy and, ultimately, to affirm itself once and for all, as this European Parliament wants, as a globally relevant power.

Madam President, Commissioner Johansson, in a plenary session so full of extremely sensitive issues, this European Parliament is once again dealing with the rights of minors and particularly with the problem of missing minors. It's creepy. The numbers are really overwhelming. The only known record – a 2013 report – indicates that at least 250 000 reported children are missing in the European Union and effectively call for coordinated action, meeting points and police and judicial cooperation. All the proposals you can put on the table will be supported by this European Parliament, which shows its utmost solidarity when it comes to vulnerable unaccompanied minors. You have shown in those figures, which are also shocking, that disappearances are recorded in conflicts that are taking place at our own borders and, therefore, that they impact all the Member States. Nearly 30 000 unaccompanied minors have entered from Ukraine, calling for attention to be paid to their vulnerability as victims of violence, abuse and labour or sexual exploitation or human trafficking networks. Therefore, there is not a second to lose. Commissioner Johansson, you have our full support for all the measures you can take for this European register of missing persons and, in particular, of missing children.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, the facts are eloquent, the facts are eloquent, but the facts are no less so. Since Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine, at least one third of the Ukrainian population has been forcibly displaced. More than 11 million people from Ukraine have entered the territory of the European Union. As you have pointed out, about seven million have returned to Ukraine, logically, because of their family contacts or their belongings. They are free to do so. But at least 4 million – most of them 90%, vulnerable and defenceless women and children – are enjoying in the European Union the status of the Temporary Protection Directive which gives them, without a visa, access to the territory of free movement of Schengen, free residence and access to employment and to all social rights and benefits that are associated with access to the labour market. Of course, we're glad. But this requires an enormous effort on the part of this Parliament to provide the necessary funding and support to the Member States. And we've done it. We have not hesitated for a second to approve the financial aid: the CARE programme (Cohesion Action for Refugees), the REACT-EU programme, all the remnants and, above all, the increase of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund ... up to EUR 400 million to support the enormous effort being deployed at the border, precisely the countries that receive them, without ignoring that, enjoying free movement in the European Union, they are currently in all the States of the European Union. In my country, in Spain, there are 140 000. Now the lesson is clear and I underline it, and that is: ‘When there is a way, there is a will; when there is a will, there is a way. We could have done this before. We have finally activated the Temporary Protection Directive. It is the first time, but the truth is that, having received four million people under the Temporary Protection Directive, the quanta of the social state and the European social model have not cracked. We are therefore in a position to do so also with people from other conflict zones and the opportunity is the roadmap that we have agreed with you, Commissioner Johansson, to move forward with the new pact, the five regulations of... (the Chair took the floor from the speaker).

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, never before in this parliamentary term have we discussed Schengen so much: "in trouble", "under pressure", "in very bad condition"... We have reason to be concerned that Schengen is identified as the most precious asset of European construction. It means free movement of people, without internal borders. And what has happened? That a succession of episodes of crisis, and particularly the pandemic, have shown that states are simply violating Schengen, which has long since ceased to be an agreement, as it is often evoked. No, it is legislated European law. There is a Schengen Borders Code. And, this debate on the judgment of the Court of Justice, what shows is that one particular Member State violated the Schengen Borders Code vis-à-vis other Member States. It has also done so in a discriminatory manner vis-à-vis its citizens. And this reminds us, therefore, that the conditions for the interposition of internal borders have to be objective, they have to be correctly communicated to the Commission and coordinated by the Commission and, moreover, they have to be limited in time. And that's exactly what the sentence says. We are not surprised because that is what we have been saying in this European Parliament over and over again. The conclusion is therefore clear: We need to draw the lessons, we need Schengen governance commensurate with this great asset of European construction and, above all, we need not only a fully functioning Schengen, but a Schengen as a whole, including Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria before the end of the year.

Mr President, Commissioner Dalli, this Parliament has debated many times about the increase in hate crimes in the European Union, but I could not miss this debate which is not only about a hate crime, but about a crime against the LGTBI community on grounds of sexual orientation perpetrated by a far-right gunman. Therefore, in addition to what has been said and the Council statement that I believe we subscribe to and support from this European Parliament, it must be said that any form of complicity with the far right is directly so with the increase in hate speech, which leads directly to hate crime. The Council must also be told that it has to move in depth to lift the blockade imposed by Poland and Hungary on the inclusion of hate crimes stemming from hate speech in the Eurocrimes referred to in Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. We need European legislation against hate crime as soon as possible.

(beginning of the out-of-microphone intervention) ... Vice-President Schinas clearly expressed that the aspiration is indeed that it should not happen again that, on such a shocking event as the interruption of the gas supply or an attack on the Nord Stream, there can be long-standing doubts as to the causality, who has done it, the responsibility, and what the European Union can do, not only to transfer that information transparently to the general public, but to protect itself as a whole against the repetition or eventual reproduction in the future of an event of that gravity.

Commissioner, I know that you understand me well if I ask you directly about an issue related to the subject of this Question Time, live and live, but certainly not expressed so far, and that is that it is possible not only to protect critical infrastructure against hybrid attacks, but also to share information, not only between Member States, but with citizens. It is shocking that there is still controversy regarding the factual sequence leading to the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline, which leads to the interruption of communications or which allows the espionage of prime ministers or leaders of the European Union and senior officials of the European Union, which prevents explaining to the whole of European public opinion, in a clear and transparent way, what the factual sequence behind these clearly scandalous facts is. The question is: in addition to investing in the protection of critical infrastructure, do we have any plans to be able to talk about what is really happening and explain it to European public opinion?