Speeches

Madam President, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I hereby confirm the urgency and priority of this procedure that has been activated by the Commission proposing a regulation to the Parliament and the Council amending a previous regulation laying down general provisions on the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the so-called AMIF, and the regulation, the same year – 2014, related to Home Affairs Funds. The objective of this proposal is addressing the harsh consequences of the unjustified and brutal war launched by Putin against Ukraine by facilitating all resources for the period 2014-2020 of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, as well as to allow more flexible access to the internal security fund, to secure external borders and visas, and to prevent and combat terrorism and radicalisation. Greater flexibility, allowing to extend the scope and the period of eligibility and unblocking access to unspent resources. In addition, this greater flexibility for the management of the funds will enhance the adoption of the measures set out in the Council Directive of 2001 on minimum standards for granting temporary protection, that we all know has been activated for the first time ever. In addition, Member States will be able to allocate contributions for the period 2021— 2027 under the heading of external assigned revenue. We’re all aware of the situation – dramatic – caused by Putin’s war and the particular situation at the border. Very delicate. From the European Parliament and from the Committee that I have the honour to chair, we have been working to reaffirm our commitment to continue providing political, financial, material and humanitarian support in a coordinated manner, as well as supporting the reconstruction of a democratic and pluralistic Ukraine. The proposal allows urgently to utilise remaining funds amounting to EUR 420 million, to help to address the increased number of persons on borders and migration management systems arising from the invasion. It is undisputable that this European Parliament should give its support, in our view, to respond to the current challenge and help people fleeing war zones. Let me point out finally that a united approach is more necessary than ever before, at European level, to manage this situation. It must be based on mutual trust, solidarity, shared responsibility between Member States and institutions alike, all to ensure sustainable and responsible migration policy, security, border management, increasing the confidence of our citizens in the ability to join forces at EU level. But I will also stress the importance of the complementarity of this proposal with the other that has been discussed in this session of the European Parliament – Cohesion Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE). To conclude, let me highlight that we call on the Russian President to fully comply with his obligations under international humanitarian law, ensure humanitarian access to victims internally displaced in Ukraine and allow safe passage for civilians compelled to leave their beloved country.

Mr President, Commissioner Urpilainen, we in this European Parliament are debating the EU Gender Action Plan III within the framework of the European Gender Strategy and we are doing so no less than on 8 March, International Women's Day, which must commit us all, women and men alike, and until we understand this, we will have understood nothing. For decades now, the Constitutions of each of the Member States of the European Union – 43 years in the case of Spain – prohibited all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex, and 13 years ago the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also prohibited it on grounds of gender identity or sexual orientation, and yet this battle remains essential for all. I would like to point out two objectives that can help to complete this European task for gender equality. First of all, we welcome the imminent fulfilment of President von der Leyen's commitment to bring to this Parliament a legislative initiative that, on the legal basis of Article 33, criminalises gender-based violence with a European law and protects victims of gender-based violence, but the task must also be completed with the fulfilment of the commitment, which must also be imminent, to reform the Criminal Directive against trafficking in human beings in a way that criminalises the use of sexual services by victims of trafficking and thus makes it a crime to use and abuse prostitution that hangs over and engages with victims of trafficking. By fulfilling these two commitments, the European Union will have taken a step further to remain a global example in the fight against all forms of violence and discrimination against women.

Mr President, in just over ten days of Putin's brutal aggression against Ukraine, the majority of this European Parliament has clearly expressed an awareness of a breaking point, a time-changer, of the European Union's accelerator and of European responses, including nothing less than the activation, at last, more than twenty years after its entry into force, of the Temporary Protection Directive. How many times have we requested it from the LIBE Committee! We required it in the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015, in the recent Afghan crisis... More than two million people, fleeing the war, have entered Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania... And, of course, they deserve solidarity and binding relocation programmes, coordinated by the Commission. But we also affirm that the same solidarity must be expressed with all refugees, particularly women and children, without discrimination, whatever their race, origin, sex or religion. Only then will Europe be realizing, effectively, that we are facing a wake-up call, in the face of a real change of epoch.

Madam President, Vice-President Jourová, this European Parliament's Special Committee on interference, disinformation and manipulation has worked hard for a year and a half and has stopped, for powerful reasons, attacks on the territorial integrity of Member States by online platforms that support destabilisation by secessionist movements to weaken supranational integration and the threat of hatred of vulnerable groups – migrants, LGBTI – in pursuit of supremacism incompatible with the values of the European Union. Intoxication, targeted hacking, hybrid threats are part of a strategy of authoritarian regimes against the founding values of open societies that make up the European Union. And the lessons are clear. A coordinated European strategy is needed against interference and online platforms interfering in electoral and democratic processes, and to strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. But the solutions are also clear: binding legislation against the lack of transparency of algorithms, literacy and digital education as self-defense of citizens and relentless sanctions against those responsible for disinformation. The brutal mix of disinformation and pure and harsh repression in Putin's Russia, in its aggression against Ukraine, shows that the task is not over. Lessons must be drawn for free public opinion to be an essential pillar of the European idea of democracy.

Mr President, ‘EU values are not for sale’. Do you all remember? I am quoting President von der Leyen. Presidenta Von der Leyen, en su discurso de investidura y, sobre todo, en el discurso sobre el estado de la Unión de 2020, la presidenta de la Comisión se comprometió a atender el requerimiento firme y enérgico que viene sosteniendo la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior desde 2014, cuando, en lo peor de la gran recesión, se generalizaron en —¡cierto!— Chipre, Malta, Bulgaria, pero también en otros doce Estados miembros de la Unión Europea, estos esquemas de adquisición privilegiada de la residencia que da lugar a la libre circulación y abre el plazo para obtener la ciudadanía y el pasaporte de la Unión Europea a quien quiera comprarlo con dinero procedente de negocios corruptos, de negocios ilícitos, de la evasión fiscal. Esta normativa no solamente es abyecta; es inmoral y es contraria directamente a los valores europeos, y, por eso, hemos exigido una y otra vez, y de nuevo en esta Resolución —que tiene como ponente a nuestra colega Sophia in 't Veld—, que se ponga fin a esos esquemas de adquisición privilegiada de la ciudadanía o la residencia por inversión. Pero todo esto cobra una importancia recrecida ante la evidencia de que la Unión Europea está obligada a crecer en su respuesta, de una vez, ante la intolerable agresión de Putin contra Ucrania. Es cierto que la Unión Europea no es una potencia militar, pero tiene que emplear todo su hard power para poner coto a esos oligarcas rusos que han comprado mansiones, palacios, castillos y yates de precios prohibitivos en toda la geografía de la Unión Europea. Incluso Estados miembros que tienen ahora Gobiernos progresistas, como Portugal y como España, han heredado de sus Gobiernos conservadores leyes infames que permiten esa adquisición de la residencia que tienen que ser derogadas por un instrumento normativo de la Comisión. Por eso esperamos esa iniciativa legislativa prometida por la presidenta Von der Leyen que ponga fin a los visados dorados y a los pasaportes dorados. ¡No a los oligarcas rusos! ¡No a los visados dorados! ¡No a los pasaportes dorados!

Madam President, this European Parliament has been instrumental in driving forward the Article 7 procedure, sanctioning Hungary's and Poland's gross breach of the common values underpinning the European Union. This Parliament was also instrumental in the adoption of the Regulation on conditionality of access of European funds to compliance with the rule of law. It is time to recall that the judgment of the Court of Justice fully confirms this in its legal basis, in its legal certainty and also in its distinct character from the Article 7 procedure. Conditionality is one thing and Article 7 is another. This is also the time to remind the French Presidency, as I had the opportunity to do yesterday, that the Regulation has never been suspended: it has been in force since 1 January 2021, although the Commission has not implemented it. In November, because it did not apply it, Parliament brought an action for failure to act before the Court of Justice against the Commission, which is bound by the cross-compliance regulation. Since the Regulation came into force, the situation has only worsened in Hungary and Poland, as evidenced by the infamous Hungarian law equating educational content on sexual orientation and homosexuality with paedophilia, or the action of the Polish government asking the Constitutional Court to declare primacy contrary to Polish constitutional law. The primacy of European Union law is the essential rule of our raison d'être. I cannot conclude without saying that this European Parliament defends Hungarian citizenship and Polish citizenship, as the Commission has an obligation to do, by now fully implementing this Conditionality Regulation, to say quite clearly that by applying it we are defending the European citizenship of 40 million Poles and 10 million Hungarians.

Madam President, Commissioner, a maxim of scientific progress teaches us that, inexorably, everything that can be done that is within the reach of historically available technology will simply be done. And that the only brake against that determination is the one imposed by ethics and by the civilizing rule of law. Neither of these barriers is invulnerable to criminal practices and unscrupulous rulers. I believe that both threats are at the heart of this debate. A technology made available to no less than forty countries, as we have known, by an Israeli patent security company (NSO), under the nickname Pegasus, which allows an unprecedented intrusion into the fundamental rights that we most esteem: privacy, confidentiality of communications, privacy. In short, the security of our personal data and our communications through, precisely, the technological tool that greater storage capacity has ever housed in the history of humanity with respect to these precious goods: mobile phones. A technology that is capable of activating, without the users' knowledge, the microphone or the camera, thus becoming a cyber-surveillance device 24 hours a day. Grossly incompatible with European law, grossly violating this technology of e-privacy, of our standard regulated by European law, the General Data Protection Regulation, in addition to, of course, the Directive on data protection in the criminal field, which accompanies it precisely to make possible the investigation of crimes by the agencies that have that responsibility: Prosecution, police, law enforcement. Because in no case can security be invoked as a patent for the violation of fundamental rights. This has been taught to us by the history of that civilizing rule of law, which excludes unlawfully obtained evidence and prohibits its validation at trial. There is therefore much we have to do and we do not have to close the door on any response within the reach of this European Parliament, including, of course, that special committee of inquiry which ensures that the Commission exercises its role not only as guarantor of European law, as guardian of the Treaties and of European law, including European privacy law. That includes, Commissioner, in your annual report on the rule of law, non-compliance with European standards, which are the highest in the world in the protection of fundamental rights. Which also includes the procedural guarantee of exclusion of any communication unlawfully obtained for any purpose. Absolute prohibition. The ‘poisoned tree fruit doctrine’ is called in procedural law, which includes in European criminal law, on the legal basis represented by Article 83, a European criminal offence of unlawful use of spywarecyber-surveillance; therefore, of massive cyber surveillance. There is a lot we have to do, we cannot exclude any possibility. But I mean, just as anything that can be technologically attempted will be done, there will always be unscrupulous rulers. And we regret that the list of habitual suspects, in addition to other countries of dubious democratic character, includes two Member States of the European Union, Hungary and Poland, again. Not only is this completely unacceptable, but the European Union has an obligation to do everything in its power to protect and guarantee the fundamental rights of Europeans, those protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which establishes not only the privacy and confidentiality of personal data, but the rules of legality, necessity, proportionality and legality of the object, legitimacy of the objective, for any measure that may affect the fundamental rights of citizens and of any person to whom European law applies. Let's never forget: the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union not only protects Europeans, but all persons in the application of European law.

Madam President, Vice-President Jourová, French Presidency, human rights either have an effective guarantee or are nothing at all: To affirm such a clear truth, it is not necessary to be a lawyer, it is enough with the commitment shown time and again by the majority of this European Parliament, which represents European citizenship, understanding that human rights include the rights of women's sexual and reproductive health because they are fundamental rights linked to personal dignity, linked to free expression, to the free development of a life and personality project, as well as to privacy and privacy. How many times will we have to say in this European Parliament that an advance in fundamental rights does not only protect people who can enjoy them in their own flesh, just as a setback in rights and freedoms does not only affect people who suffer from that setback in their own flesh? An advance in rights and freedoms makes all of society more dignified, more decent, better, made up of men and women standing in equal dignity and freedom, just as a setback in women's rights and freedoms makes us all worse off. And that is why this European Parliament has repeatedly expressed its concern about the setbacks of rights and freedoms that occur in democratic societies: no one is safe, either in Texas (United States), in the face of the offensive in the Supreme Court, or, of course, in the European Union, where there are states that do not recognize the right to the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, states that cause this setback. Yesterday, on the part of the French presidency, President Macron said that the right to free termination of pregnancy had to be incorporated into the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the President of the Socialists replied on the fly that it would be enough for the Council to monitor the states that are causing these setbacks subject to Article 7, but this European Parliament will continue to fight so that all human rights and fundamental freedoms are effectively guaranteed..

Mr. President, the struggle for human rights and democracy anywhere in the world is interconnected, and never as now in globalization. That is why the European Union cares about the deteriorating human rights and freedoms situation in Hong Kong; because it implies respect for the agreement, at the time, between the People's Republic of China and the then Member State of the European Union, the United Kingdom, for Hong Kong to be integrated into the sovereignty of a single China, but under the ‘one country, two systems’ principle, which has been flagrantly violated in recent times with the arbitrary detention of more than 150 human rights activists, the restriction of the margin of representation and the abusive imposition of the National Security Act. It is not within the reach of this European Parliament to review the situation in Hong Kong, but to support, as the group of parliamentarians who are part of Hong Kong Watch in this European Parliament wants, the action of the strategic autonomy that High Representative Borrel must lead so that we do not move from the Cold War to the Hot War, neither in Hong Kong, nor in Taiwan, nor in Ukraine, nor anywhere in the world.

Madam President, Vice-President Schinas, a debate returns to the European Parliament on the challenge posed by what we have called a ‘hybrid attack’ perpetrated by the rogue Lukashenka regime – Europe’s last dictator, 30 years in power – and directly affecting its neighbours in the European Union, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. The occasion would have been propitious for Poland, so reluctant to comply with European law, to reflect on the value of solidarity because, indeed, a hybrid attack on any Member State of the European Union is an attack on the whole of the European Union, but it happens that the response adopted by the Commission does no harm to Lukashenka; in fact, it makes no difference and yet it can make a difference to the desperate human beings that Lukashenka is instrumentalising, those who are indeed already facing the harsh winter; It makes a difference because they intend to suspend nothing less than the Reception Conditions Directive and the Asylum Procedures Directive without proportionality being proven. There are doubts that should be cleared up in the course of this debate because the numbers do not justify a suspension of the rules of European law, and it is also done by leaving the European Parliament out of its role as legislator on an equal footing - it is the role given to it by the Treaty of Lisbon in the field of migration and asylum - thus reducing it to a procedure of mere consultation. Understand that the European Parliament's concern about these measures is justified, and we demand that the humanitarian protection of people without borders be ensured; to ensure the assistance of humanitarian organisations, which cannot be criminalised for paying attention to these desperate people, and to ensure compliance with European law, which matters in any case; It matters above all in crisis situations, and a hybrid attack is a crisis situation, because European law matters in the toughest and most difficult situations, and, without a doubt, the one that is posed at the external borders of the European Union matters not only to Poland, it matters not only to Lithuania, it matters not only to Latvia: It matters to all European citizens, who expect European law to be complied with in the harshest and most difficult situations.

Madam President, Vice-President Schinas, again Poland: debate on the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in a Member State of the European Union. On 7 October 2021, the Polish Constitutional Court, massively intervened by the government party in Poland, declared at the request of the Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General – who are the same person – that the Treaty on European Union – no less – is incompatible with the Polish Constitution, which means that Poland and its Government no longer feel bound by the primacy of EU law over Polish law, nor do they feel bound by the common values of Article 2, nor by the principles proclaimed in Article 3 and the objectives contained in the Treaty on European Union, which include the area of freedom, security and justice, linked by mutual trust and mutual recognition, which is the only way judicial cooperation between Member States of the European Union works. Well, new twist: on 24 November the Polish Constitutional Court – again, massively intervened by the government – declared that the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, which comprises 47 Member States, including all the Member States of the European Union, is also incompatible with the Polish Constitution; And the question is what else can we expect. The Conference on the Future of Europe hears a growing question from young people across Europe: ‘How long —quousque tandem– are we going to tolerate Poland’s challenge of a EUR 1 million daily fine as a result of its persistent failure to comply with the judgments of the courts of law, both of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Court of Justice of the European Union?’ And they wonder when the Polexit bearing in mind that the European Union does not provide for any article allowing the expulsion of a government that manifestly challenges the values of the Union. And I answer them: that's not a good picture, it's not good news, nobody wants the Polexit. This European Parliament expresses the European citizenship of the 40 million Poles and defends it in front of its government, in constant defiance of EU law. How long, Poland?

Madam President, Vice-President Schinas, plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, with so many legislative issues to deal with and here we have a supreme example of an issue that should not have reached this rostrum because it is not a legislative act, not even an official Commission document, an official Commission communication, but an internal working document that recommends the use of inclusive language to prevent mechanical reproduction or, even worse, unconscious, clichés and stereotypes from the proven experience that stereotypes lead to the reproduction of prejudices. Prejudice is the seed of hate, and hate leads to violence and hate crime, and exclusion, of course; This is why the display from this rostrum of personal religious beliefs under the hypocritical invocation of religious freedom - which nobody has questioned and which, in any case, would be included in the motto of the European Union, "United in diversity" - is completely out of place and confuses citizens about a false debate and an even more tricky object. The only explanation is a concession from the right mainstream of this House, of the People's Party, what political science calls a 'culture war', which is a forced and contrived confrontation between values, symbols and the meaning we give to words, and the only thing I can say is that by doing so the right wing of this House, the People's Party, is playing into the hands of the far right. This is therefore a matter that should never have reached the rostrum of the European Parliament: We do not come here to exhibit our personal religious beliefs, but to respect ourselves in our diversity.

Mr President, Commission, it is now six months since this European Parliament approved the Digital COVID Certificate under the urgency procedure, for which I had the honour of being rapporteur, with limitation of purpose and serving the restoration of free movement in the European Union, and for which the Commission undertook to review its performance after nine months. A plausible scenario is a new puzzle of emergency measures adopted unilaterally by the Member States to the serious detriment of equality before the law and legal certainty, forcing the Commission, once again, to try to strike a balance between public health and rights and freedoms, among which we cherish so much freedom of movement. The inevitable scenario, the only way forward, is for the European Union to change its position and bet decisively on the mandatory release of intellectual property patents that will allow multiplying the pace of production and distribution of vaccines on a global scale and do so before the organs of the World Health Organization. The ethical strength of this argument grows when we see evidence that the delta variant emerged in India and the omicron variant, they say, emerged in South Africa; two countries that requested from the first minute the mandatory exemption of patents for the benefit of a response of global scale, which is the only way out. Because if we are faced with a global pandemic, there is no possibility that we will have security until we are all at a global scale. It is the only way to ensure not only a message of solidarity, but also protection of the self-interest of the European Union. Mandatory release of intellectual property patents from large pharmaceutical industries.

Mr President, Commissioner for Equality, that gender-based violence and violence against women is not a strictly local phenomenon, nor is it confined to the perimeter of the Member States of the European Union, is something assumed by this European Parliament, and that is why we have supported the ratification of the Istanbul Convention by the European Union and why this European Parliament has urged the Commission to take this incorporation of the European Union as a priority. Similarly, online violence, cyberviolence and cyberbullying have a European dimension that requires common definitions, common rules and common sanctions, which does not override the criminal jurisdiction of the Member States, but frames it in European parameters. That is the legal basis provided by Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, because it is indeed a crime of European scope, as is also the need to protect its victims, both in the course of the process and in the social and care services necessary to stand up from the European Union and with an instrument of European law to cyberviolence and cyberbullying. That is why I join the voices urging the Commission to present a European initiative incorporating gender-based violence and cyberviolence into the list of 'EU crimes'.

Mr President Castaldo, Commissioner for Justice, Minister, this is the second time that this European Parliament has discussed the situation of fundamental rights and the rule of law and the situation of the European Public Prosecutor's Office in Slovenia. Believe me, as chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of this European Parliament, I am not happy. On the contrary: I am particularly concerned that Slovenia holds the presidency of the European Union this semester – the rotating presidency – and you, Mr Minister, do not represent Slovenia in this debate, but the Council. But Slovenia is certainly in a position and, in my view, can and must make a difference to those Member States that are woefully habitual in debates on the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights – Hungary and Poland – to begin with, affirming and accepting the primacy of European law, which enshrines as common values of the European Union, in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, those of respect for pluralism and protection of minorities, and which, moreover, points out as a very clear mandate the obedience and compliance with the judgments of the courts of justice when they apply European law, and, of course, imposes the duty of sincere cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. So we regret this five-month delay and welcome the fact that finally the two Slovenian national prosecutors join the structure of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to perform their best services. But you too, Minister, are in a position to send a message to your Prime Minister, Janez Janša, and the message is clear: when the European Parliament sends an official delegation to a Member State of the European Union, that delegation is not an alien, not a foreign interference, not: is representing the European citizenship of two million Slovenian citizens.

Mr President, Vice-President Schinas, in an ageing Europe with increasing labour shortages in a growing number of jobs, it is a great idea that this European Parliament is going to adopt a report on how to reaffirm, widen, improve and update legal immigration routes to the European Union with nine recommendations. The idea of talent pool and talent partnerships to attract skilled labour is a good one, but there are more: The self-employed and entrepreneurs and their ways of admission, including low-skilled workers in certain employment niches, also need support, and it is therefore imperative to update the Single Permit Directive, the Seasonal Workers Directive and the Long-Term Residence Directive and establish a European advisory service for migrants in a regular situation, but above all, the Directive on sanctions against employers or employers exploiting migrants in a vulnerable situation must be sanctioned and strengthened. I think it is clear that regular migration - this is the message sent by this European Parliament report - is part of the solution, not part of the problem: is part of the future of the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner Dalli, on 19 June 2021, Stanislav Tomáš, a Roma European citizen, a citizen of the Czech Republic, died in a terrible episode of police brutality choked to death; I would recall the case of George Floyd, with the only difference that in Europe a movement shouting 'I can't breathe' has not resonated in all latitudes of the Union. As denounced by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Roma in Europe continue to be victims of hate speech, collective punishment, arbitrary police checks and brutality and racist bias, as well as systematic segregation. It is therefore high time for the European Union as a whole to learn the lessons. In September 2020, this European Parliament adopted a strategy against the segregation and discrimination of the Roma population and for their inclusion, and I believe that it is time for the European Union to accompany this strategy with the adoption of a legislative initiative that bets not only on the integration and inclusion of the Roma population, but on a relentless fight against anti-Gypsyism and against all the injustices that result from the systematic segregation of the Roma population in Europe in the health, residential and school spheres. Not just strategy, therefore: European legislation against anti-Gypsyism.

Madam President, the exploitation of the desperation of human beings at the external borders of the European Union as General Winter approaches is not a migration crisis, it is a political challenge posed by a tyrant in our neighbourhood who takes advantage of the blatant lack of unity in the response and exploits the vulnerability of both migrants and the European Union itself. It is never repeated enough that, if we pooled our diplomatic and defensive capabilities, we could talk about you to those who practice it. bullying, be it Russia or any of its satellites, as is the case with Lukashenka in Belarus, and we never repeat enough that we must deal with those who blackmail by taking advantage of that absence of unity and pooling of our defensive and diplomatic capabilities. We also have to repeat, of course, that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and full compliance with the right to asylum and all the law governing migration at European level are important, that all Member States of the European Union must be required to do so even in the most difficult situations, but that the task will not be complete until we are able to bring into force European legislation that will sanction – not only prevent, but also sanction – the instrumentalisation of human beings at the external borders of the European Union.

Madam President, in this plenary session of the European Parliament we voted on the outcome of the agreement between the Council and the European Parliament on the 2022 budget. I would like to highlight a contribution with a clear social-democratic imprint: an increase of EUR 211 million in the initial allocation of EUR 500 million for the European Union Solidarity Fund. I want to share with this European Parliament an absolute priority: the repair of the damage caused by the volcano of La Palma, when it has more than 60 days of eruption, because – the reason speaks for itself – the volcano adds up all the assumptions of the Solidarity Fund, initially designed for earthquakes, fires, havoc, destruction of infrastructure. Everything has been done by the volcano, and European money must be used to repair damaged infrastructure, equipment, energy and water, and schools and doctors destroyed by lava. Therefore, European solidarity must join the solidarity of the Government of the Canary Islands and the Government of Spain and must do so as soon as possible, eliminating any barriers or bureaucratic obstacles that may prevent aid from reaching us as soon as possible, because to the victims of the volcano of La Palma who look at us and question us, the European Union must respond effectively and, above all, immediately.

Madam President, Vice-President Jourová, freedom of expression, of the press, and pluralism of information are nuclearly linked in the same article, Article 11, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union because they are consubstantial to the European idea of democracy, and it is a fact that nowhere are freedoms, not that of the press, protected, not secured, not consolidated forever: All are exposed to the risk of anti-democratic regressions, setbacks and, of course, authoritarian governments that use civil or criminal lawsuits and truculent lawsuits to try to intimidate and gag those who exercise the fundamental right of free and critical journalism with governments. That is why the European Parliament has the duty to demand from the Commission a legislative initiative that establishes common standards and guarantees for press freedom, which has as a corollary information pluralism and is only credible where there is information pluralism, and that protects journalism critical of governments against the exercise of intimidating complaints that have the clear intention of curbing and muzzling the free exercise of information pluralism. That legislation is the result of the work that this European Parliament has done by taking seriously that European idea of democracy that requires the formation of a free and informed public opinion, which is also, of course, able to ensure through fact-checking its own self-defence against the spread of information hoaxes and poisoning, but it is essential to preserve freedom of the press and pluralism of information, and that is why this resolution concludes in that demand for European legislation by the Commission.

Mr President, High Representative Borrell, when a humanitarian challenge reaches a limit, precisely in the most difficult and worst-handled times, it is useful to return to the principles, and the first is the one that reminds us that, if there are unscrupulous rulers who instrumentalise ⁇ weaponise, as we usually say ⁇ the unspeakable suffering of defenceless human beings, either on the sea or land border of the African continent with the European Union, either in the East – on the Aegean islands, in Turkey – or in the north ⁇ Belarus, Lukashenka's endless and candid dictatorship over its own people, shaking the border in Poland, Lithuania or Latvia ⁇ , it is because they believe they can take advantage of a European response that is not unitary enough. That is why the second lesson is that the European response must be unitary and also consistent with its values; solidarity, yes, with Poland, with Lithuania, with Latvia and with all of Southern Europe, but above all consistent with its own legislated law. So the third lesson is that law matters: human rights matter, the fundamental rights of those desperate people, who are being instrumentalised at the external border, but also European asylum law, the Common European Asylum System, which is binding on all Member States and must be respected. And, of course, also the external dimension, the protection of the Union's external borders, which has to be unitary: not in solidarity with Poland and Latvia, but in the awareness that it is the border of the European Union as a whole, as on the African continent Ceuta and Melilla, or as the Aegean islands: of the European Union as a whole. And that is why the important message is that it has to be known that it is an ironic lesson for Poland, which has questioned the consistency of European law, that it is precisely the unity of the European Union on Poland's border with the rogue Lukashenka regime in Belarus that is being tested.

Madam President, yes, I am stating here the case of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). As you are well aware, LIBE recommended in its first opinion for the 2019 discharge, to postpone the discharge for the agency. But then, in September 2021, the LIBE Committee called on the Budgetary Control Committee (CONT) not to grant discharge for 2019 to Frontex due to allegations of mismanagement, non—compliance with its commitments, non—adherence to the Frontex Regulation. Above all, all of the investigation on Frontex is still pending – not yet available. But it is a fact and an assumption that the increased competent staff and budget for the agency needs to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in accountability and transparency. That is why, the LIBE Frontex Scrutiny Group, in its report endorsed on 15 July 2021, found issues related to reporting on fundamental rights, most concerning incidents, lack of recruitment of fundamental rights officers, and I quote: ‘lack of cooperation of the executive director to ensure full compliance with some of the provisions of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation, notably on fundamental rights.’ Therefore, I conclude, I am sorry to announce that we cannot grant discharge to the agency for 2019. Also, if we want, we can insist on our own approach to the 2022 budget with a reserve agreed for the agency due to the issues thereby.

Madam President, Commissioner Johansson, when a ruler is a tyrant and a despot with his own people, it is no surprise that he behaves like a hooligan and a scoundrel with his nearest border; therefore the whole neighbourhood has a problem: We are talking about Lukashenka and the European Union. Of course, the instrumental use of human beings as a tool of pressure on the European Union is unacceptable and that requires a European response, but equally European it must be the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers because they are protected by European asylum law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which protects not only European citizens, but anyone in the application of European law, and, therefore, whether Poland, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, any country that is an external border of the European Union has the obligation to apply and observe European asylum law, which also includes Frontex, the same as the European Union Agency for Asylum or the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights itself. That is why forced returns at the border are completely unacceptable, incompatible with European law: this is true at the toughest times, in the most difficult situations and at the most vulnerable borders; That is why the Commission has an obligation to initiate infringement proceedings against anyone who violates Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, as with the rule of law, in the fight against money laundering any loophole in a Member State affects the European Union as a whole; It is therefore imperative that national supervisors and financial intelligence units against suspected money laundering transactions and activities have common rules against technological innovation of criminal means. We therefore welcome the Commission's proposal: no less than four regulations – this Parliament has legislated, and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs is reminded of this – and five criminal directives against money laundering from illicit businesses, but the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Authority, which is an advance that could be more ambitious, with more supervisory powers and faster, particularly against crypto-assets and in relation to the travel rule, in its effectiveness against organised crime and terrorism. Finally, I think it is important to highlight the recommendation of the FATF, the Council of Europe and the OECD that the combination of forces of OLAF, Europol, Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor's Office should in fact make it clear that crime is not profitable.

Mr President, President von der Leyen, Prime Minister Morawiecki, the Polish citizens, the Polish citizens who follow us know full well that it was the indefatigable demand of this European Parliament that has brought to the debate, time and again, the continuing challenge of the government it presides over, under the baton of Jarosław Kaczyński, to European Union law and its founding values. And you know why? Because this European Parliament represents them. It represents the European citizenship of Polish citizenship, and represents Poland's commitment to the European Union, which is a union of rights and obligations that bind us all by the same law. And so the rhetoric of comparative grievance is ridiculous and hypocritical. Do you know why? Because your government is a unique case of persistent non-compliance with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice, such as the one declared incompatible with European law by that disciplinary chamber which imposes sanctions on judges applying European law; because your government is a unique case in which the Prosecutor General is at the same time Minister of Justice, and it is the Government you preside over that has asked the Polish Constitutional Court, declared illegitimate by the Council of Europe, to declare nothing less than Articles 1, 2, 4 and 19 of the Treaty on European Union incompatible with the Polish Constitution. Nothing less than the founding values of the European Union: the rule of law, democracy, fundamental rights, the primacy of EU law and the role of the Court of Justice as guarantor. That is why we call on the Commission, time and again, to require the Council to take a decision by qualified majority, in relation to the Article 7 procedure, which we launched in this European Parliament; to impose once and for all the conditionality mechanism linked to the rule of law, which prevents access to European Funds until the conditions of European law that bind us all are fully met; furthermore, impose infringement procedures and pecuniary fines on the Government of Poland until it fully complies with European law; and, of course, to freeze access to REACT-EU funds for those municipalities that are infamously declared or self-proclaimed free of LGTBI ideology, which is completely incompatible with European law. And you know what we're doing? We are defending European citizenship from Polish citizenship. We are defending Poland in the European Union. That is what we are doing, because we want a Poland that is fully linked to the European Union, not a Poland that is able to decouple itself from the rules of the game in what is right for it, but by accessing the European Funds, so it is sending an absolutely unacceptable - if not lethal - message for the future of the Union: that this is an on-demand European Union, not a union of values and rights that bind us all and bind us equally. (Applause)