Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner Mînzatu, we have again a debate on social Europe, on the fight against poverty: an EU anti-poverty strategy. And those of us who are lawyers know that rights are worth what their guarantees are worth, including social rights, which means that the European Child Guarantee must have a budget allocation - as this European Parliament calls for - of at least EUR 20 billion per year in the budget. And there is a gender factor, but also generational, in the translation of poverty, and, therefore, a huge challenge is to combat homelessness and the difficulty of access to housing, which has become the largest factor of inequality in the European Union. And there is something the European Union can do to facilitate access to housing: not only to mobilise EUR 700 billion in the European Affordable Housing Plan, but also to combat speculative investment by investment funds and vulture housing funds, which makes it prohibitive, not only for young people, but also for the working class in the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, when we talk about education in this Parliament, we see that many of us have come to politics from teaching and some and some from a lifelong passion for equal rights and opportunities, because that is education: a capital pillar of social Europe, redressing inequalities. This is recognised not only in the Sustainable Development Goals (Goal 4), but above all in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 14). I bring to your attention two dimensions that have been discussed in this Strasbourg plenary session: firstly, the necessary budgetary allocation in the multiannual financial framework for the European Social Fund and for the Erasmus+ programme, which has to be sufficient to act as a tool, as a lever for equalisation of opportunities and as a social lift in a fundamental right such as education. But, secondly, it is the one that refers to the protection of minors against those digital tools that have to be incorporated into their educational curriculum through digital literacy, to protect minors and make them less vulnerable to the manipulation of the platform's business model.

Madam President, Commissioner, of the concerns I have already heard regarding the rule of law and the management of European funds in Slovakia, I would add and underline one that sums them all up: the removal by law of 2025 of the Whistleblower Protection Office and the withdrawal of the protection enjoyed by those who had already reported. And this affects European legislation, the Directive on the protection of whistleblowers that we launched after the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry on large-scale electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency of the United States. It therefore affects compliance with European law and the fight against corruption, the management of European funds and the principle of non-regression – not going backwards – which is a fundamental criterion in the rule of law according to the reports of the Venice Commission. Add to this the 2024 reform – for which this European Parliament has already expressed its concern – of the Criminal Code to abolish the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, and you have the full picture, Commissioner McGrath, to know that the Commission’s mission is to monitor compliance with European law. This does not mean any prejudice against Slovakia, of course, nor any leftist conspiracy, which does not exist. No, it means judgment on the facts in Slovakia.

Madam President, in this debate there are two views on migration and on migrants. A widely represented one in this European Parliament and in the Council, negative and rejection, even at the risk of an ageing and declining Europe. And there is an alternative, the one represented by the Government of Spain: inclusive and open to the opportunities of regularisation. It's morally correct. It is legally complementary to the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which has always demanded legal avenues. It is economically positive because it finally allows them to pay taxes and social security contributions – their contributions – which will finance public services to those who give more than they receive. It is a direct confrontation with the business model of mafias, which is based exactly on exploitation and fear of vulnerability. And it is also compatible with legal certainty, because it establishes clear deadlines, in addition to, of course, requiring that there be no criminal record. But, above all, Spain demonstrates that it is the first in growth and employment generation. Therefore, the Spanish model works.

Mr President, Commissioner Micallef, the last legislature was the legislature of the strategy for the protection of minors and of the resolutions on the rights of minors in compliance with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. But this is the legislature's move to action against the cyberbullying, against harassment of minors in networks, cyberbullying. And, therefore, the first and foremost thing is to ensure the mental health of minors, but also the ability of the European Union to impose its right to large digital platforms and its business model. Therefore, it is necessary to enforce the Digital Services Act, but also the provisions in the Digital Equity Act, with a very powerful chapter of protection of minors, which requires digital literacy, thus incorporating the rules of self-protection of minors in educational programs through the educational process of minors. But, in addition to that, the European Union needs to finally harmonise its age verification rules because parental control is not enough, and it is not possible to abandon exclusively to the governments of the Member States the heterogeneous age verification rules that continue to contribute more data to that business model of large digital platforms. And finally, a European protocol for the identification and protection of minor victims is needed so that we do not have to regret tragedies arising from the self-destructive impulse to which cyberbullying leads. cyberbullying on the net.

Mr President, Commissioner, this week we are voting here, in plenary, on the report on the proposal for a regulation on the 'safe third country', an initiative that is alien to the Pact on Migration and Asylum, in which many of us have our sights not only, but also our hopes for, at last, an acceptable balance between shared responsibility and compulsory solidarity that is so crucial in external border regions such as the Canary Islands. The Government of Spain has activated a programme for the relocation of children who have arrived after dramatic rescue and rescue operations, overcoming many difficulties, in order to articulate, at last, an internal solidarity in which it is crucial that there be a pan-European reference of solidarity in the management of migratory flows and asylum claims. That is why full compliance with the Pact on Migration and Asylum and, above all, the coordination and monitoring of solidarity offers raised by the Member States, by the EU Solidarity Coordinator, is so important, because this is where the credibility of the pact goes and the response - finally humanitarian and responsible - to a challenge that requires a pan-European response goes.

Madam President, Commissioner Mînzatu, the recovery of the social pillar decided in Porto has been essential for the relaunch and recognition of Europe, after the mistreatment of the social pillar and the exasperation of inequalities caused by the Great Recession and its poor management: austerity. But if there is a social priority at present, it is housing and that is why we welcome the Commission's plan, for the first time in history, for affordable housing, mobilising EUR 700 billion. But there is something else that the European Union must do and only the European Union can: restricting the free movement of capital to investment funds and to those which the official languages call vulture funds, in order to prevent them from making housing a speculative object. Because only in this way will we be able to talk about housing seriously as a right. The European Union can and must prevent investment funds and vulture funds from hoarding housing by ejecting from the right to housing so many millions of workers, particularly young people across Europe, who expect and must do so.

Mr President Pons, Commissioner Mînzatu, this is a very good debate aimed at accelerating and intensifying the European drone industry, but I share three ideas with you. First of all, yes, it is essential to accelerate the European anti-drone wall, but even more essential is to identify the threat to our critical infrastructure, because we have all suffered airport collapses by a drone and it is essential to find out what it is. We don't know. Is he a state actor? Russia? Is he a non-state actor? Is it a criminal organization or is it an irresponsible private drone? Secondly, this highlights the importance of skills specialisation, as 27 Member States are very unequal to each other. And it is not enough simply to increase investment, but to ensure that each of the Member States does what they do best to meet this appointment with the European anti-drone industry. And thirdly, it's not just about military and defensive enforcement. It is clear that this plenary session of the European Parliament has shown itself to be preoccupied and even obsessed with defence. But it also has important applications of a civil nature and of the protection of citizens, without neglecting, of course, that the defensive industry cannot be in deterioration of regional and cohesion policy and solidarity, which are the distinctive reason for the existence of the European Union.

I basically agree with the point – although it is not a question, again, but I can comment! The reason why we put in place a rule‑of‑law, democracy and fundamental rights framework is to prevent a serious breach from happening. Because we saw that in Hungary first, then it was a time in Poland too, but then it was a situation that was to be corrected when it was much too far and much too late. So it's reasonable enough that we do it precisely to prevent – we are showing concern, we are showing precisely our point and our commitment with the Media Freedom Act. But having said that, I insist there is a difference between a serious breach, a clear risk and a situation which is worth talking about but not indicating a massive violation of the Constitution.

Mr President, Commissioner Micallef, we are discussing here a point on the agenda regarding a reform of the oversight body of public television in Lithuania, and the S&D Group has negotiated a measured resolution that we are about to vote in favour of because we are concerned, yes, about information pluralism and compliance with the European Regulation on Media Freedom, without a doubt, and it is also a point made in the very annual report on the rule of law before the LIBE Committee - and then debated in this House - in relation to Lithuania. That said, it is very important to make the difference – I always insist on this – between those countries where there is a clear risk (clear risk) of a serious and systemic breach (serious breach) of the rules of the rule of law and democracy, which include respect for information pluralism, and those countries where there is a situation that can be explained in relation to the fight against deviations in public procurement or that, although a reform that deserves to be discussed, in no case indicates a massive violation of the rules of the rule of law or the Constitution. Therefore, yes, the expression of concern with regard to information pluralism is reasonable, and it is important that the resolution tomorrow marks the European Parliament's commitment in this regard. That is exactly why we are preparing to vote on it, but I insist on the difference between the massive violation of the rule of law networks and those issues that deserve some debate without there being any reason to indict any country.

Mr President, Vice-President Virkkunen, migration is not an out-of-control threat, it is not an invasion, it is not a crisis; it is a fact, and it can only be faced – because it is beyond the reach of any of the Member States – if we do it together, without any concession to fear or panic, if we do it in accordance with our values and with legislated law. This European Parliament has put into force a Pact on Migration and Asylum consisting of eight binding rules, European regulations. It has not even entered into force and the Commission has already taken two steps in the wrong direction and contrary to the Pact, which strikes an acceptable balance between shared responsibility and mandatory solidarity, particularly to care for and redistribute people rescued at sea. Those wrong steps are, firstly, a proposal for arbitrary widening of safe countries and, secondly, a tightening of the return regime that opens the way to external return centres that outsource migration management and have no guarantee of respect for human rights. Therefore, there must be legal and safe pathways, fair compliance with the obligations of the Pact on Migration and Asylum and a humanitarian and responsible response.

Thank you, Madam President, Mr President Costa, High Representative Kallas, is it that Europe cannot respond to Trump's threats, attacks and pressures or is it that Europe does not want to? It has the instruments: suspend, as uneven and unfair, Scotland’s tariff agreement; activate the 2023 Anti-Counterfeit Regulation - which we approved exactly for that purpose and, if not now, when? - and activate the mutual defence clause of Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union, standing up to the putinescos within the European Union: Viktor Orbán and Robert Fico. But where the external credibility and trust of European citizens is really at stake is in the bazooka that it has with its regulatory power, maintaining its normative standard against the digital oligarchy instead of trying to appease it. Because, if appeasement doesn't work with Trump, neither will any bus with the giants on the network. That is the stature of the European Union that awaits the people who are represented in this European Parliament.

Mr President, High Representative Kaja Kallas, the national security strategy of the United States does not consider the European Union a friendly partner, but, on the contrary, an organisation that it considers weak to harass. What else does it take for the European Union to decide to mature? You don’t just have to wake up –wake up call— but to step out of their comfort zone and, in addition, make the right decisions while being aware that the quantitative increase in the investments of the 27 Member States in defence is not enough, but above all the qualitative factor of the integration of capabilities by specialties is necessary, so that this current stage of the coalition of the willing can be overcome towards permanent structured cooperation. Because the first thing that is needed for the rearmament of Europe is the rearmament of the will to be, of the European confidence that it is able to take charge of its own security and its own defence.