Speeches

Madam President, migration is a fact. It is not a threat to our security or our identity and, of course, walls are not the answer. The answer must be European in its scope, in its values, but also in its law legislated according to the principles of binding solidarity and shared responsibility. This Parliament has implemented this legislated law on migration and asylum. If we are negotiating a new Pact, it is because there have been breaches of the law of the Member States, of the governments of the Member States, and a lack of solidarity and shared responsibility. But we still have a chance. For this, it is essential that there is binding solidarity and shared responsibility from the exposed borders, from the Canary Islands to Lesbos, on the part of the Member States. The European Parliament is going to do its job. That is why we have taken up the road map, the timetable before the end of this mandate for the adoption of these five regulations. It is simply imperative that the Council does its part of the work. When there is a will, there must be a way.

Madam President Regner, Commissioner, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, we are once again debating in the European Parliament the erosion of the rule of law and information pluralism. And we do it on the ground. Since the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs mandated the Commission – Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders – to bring an annual report on the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in the European Union, we know that there are states where a clear risk of systemic violation of the common values of the Union is identified. But in all Member States there can indeed be problems of erosion of the rule of law and setbacks of freedoms that we consider fundamental. This is the case of the concentration of news media, discussed today, in Greece. It is important to know that this debate concerns not just one Member State, but the Union as a whole. Of course, the violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, in Article 8, by our colleague Androulakis, concerns the Union as a whole. It is implausible to try to argue that there may be a security threat that justifies a massive interception of your telephone and personal communications with such an intrusive instrument and, in my view, as incompatible with the guarantee of the fundamental rights of the Charter, as the Pegasus tool and, in the Greek case, the spyware Predator. I consider it completely unacceptable that there should be a concentration of media in a Member State in very few hands and, in particular, close to the government. Because it is unacceptable that there are journalists threatened in the European Union for carrying out their investigative work. Because it is unacceptable that there has been a murder of a journalist and that it is scarcely mentioned in the debates in this House, as is the case of Georgios Karaivaz, in 2021, which has not yet been clarified. Because it is completely unacceptable that it is not being ensured in every Member State that strict compliance with European law, which is currently under way, is anticipated: the Anti-SLAPP Directive, which, for everyone to understand, is a Directive to prevent intimidation through litigation or filing complaints against independent journalists; the Media Freedom Act, which seeks to protect not only freedom of information but also pluralism of information; and what we hope will be the conclusions of the Pegasus Committee of Inquiry, of which I am a member, which will hopefully establish a framework, no longer regulatory, but a ban on such intrusive tools for the confidentiality of personal data and personal communications, such as Pegasus and Predator.

Mr. President Karas, we have a year of Putin's unjust and criminal war against Ukraine. But we must go back many years to remember a Parliament whose broad majority is so united in the exercise of leadership vis-à-vis it by High Representative Borrell and President von der Leyen. This Parliament has supported humanitarian measures for displaced people, supported the commitment to strategic autonomy and energy autonomy, supported sanctions against Russia and also supported military aid to Ukraine. No warmongering. Indeed, there is no contradiction. On the contrary, it reaffirms Europe's commitment to peace: support the assaulted in the face of the aggressor. But I find myself among those who, when talking about Zeitenwende – a change of era – hope that the European Union will also take advantage of this leadership to be more united in building a cohesive common foreign, defence and security policy to repair the social and economic cost of sanctions, including for the most vulnerable, in the European Union; and to recover the lost motto of when we ratified the Treaty of Lisbon: "A more perfect Union".

Mr President Karas, Commissioner Jourová, President of the Council, in September 2021, this European Parliament adopted a resolution requiring an inter-institutional agreement that would put in place an ethical body that would make declarations of financial interests and incompatibilities of Members of the European Parliament transparent and accessible. But now ask for more. Calls for a legislative act: a European law ensuring that consequences are inferred from the lack of veracity of such declarations of interests; to provide for the protection of whistleblowers who report any irregular or corrupt acts that may take place in a European institution; to coordinate that body with OLAF, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Europol, the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors, and, above all, to reinforce the principle of citizens’ trust in the European Parliament and to state very clearly that, if there is someone in the European institutions who assumes individual criminal responsibility for committing a crime, an act of corruption, in no case can it be pointed out that the mechanisms of transparency, verification of authenticity and sanctions of an independent body are those that have failed, because this has now been the case.

Mr President, Commissioner Dalli, the Committee on Freedoms, Justice and Home Affairs has criminally legislated this legislature against cybercrime and cyberbullying against women. That is a priority for the European Union in all international forums, including the United Nations. But it must also be said that no resolution of the United Nations can have the force to force international legality if it is not assumed as such by the European Union and its Member States. At the time we talked about the Istanbul Convention, in which the European Parliament mandated the Commission, with the Council, to ratify it with a single legal personality and yet the task is not complete. Despite the fact that the mandate was from 2017, the Swedish Presidency has not yet managed to start ratification by six of the Member States. And that which the Court of Justice has said can be done without unanimity. Therefore, in order for it to have the strength to bind the mandate of the European Union in the General Assembly of the United Nations, the important thing is to speak with a voice of its own and for all States to comply with their obligations to protect women.

Madam President, last year, 2022, we celebrated 70 years of the Constitution of the First Parliamentary Assembly of the European Communities. This European Parliament is a leap forward in that it is the only democratically elective, legislative and supranational institution in the world. But it is essential to know that electoral participation in the forty years that this Parliament has been directly elected by universal suffrage has declined, bouncing upwards, and we must celebrate it, in the 2019 elections. There is much that we need to do to continue to stimulate the electoral participation and this electoral right of mobile citizens, that is, of those 13 million European citizens who reside in some other country of which they are not nationals. It is a step in the right direction and you have to do it with all the guarantees: information, campaign, language comprehensible to them, removal of all bureaucratic obstacles and facilitation of early voting and postal voting, in particular for persons with disabilities. It is therefore a correct step. I conclude by saying that I have heard it said in this debate that there is no European citizenship. That is to deny European law. European citizenship exists because it is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and EU law. And this Parliament represents it.

Madam President, Commissioner Hahn, one year after Putin's illegal, illegitimate and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine, this European Parliament has done everything in its power to show its commitment to the sanctions against Russia and its solidarity with the Ukrainian people suffering from this war. We have supported the confiscation of oligarchs' property. We have supported, through the urgent procedure, the strengthening of Eurojust for cooperation with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in order to avoid impunity for war crimes. And we have also supported the European Union's initiative to set up a special tribunal for the crime of aggression. But of the 11 million displaced people fleeing terror, at least 4 million have decided to remain in the European Union indefinitely. And that also requires the reinforcement of European budget lines to support the solidarity that exists in the Member States, to address vulnerable situations and, in particular, the schooling of minors. And believe me, he will certainly count on the support of the Socialist Group for this.

Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, all that is to strengthen the union of the European Union in the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism is to go in the right direction and it has the strong support of this European Parliament. Of course, the delegated act, the list of high-risk third countries for money laundering purposes, has it. But it is also important that the Swedish Presidency is fully engaged in pushing forward the new anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing package, which consists of no less than five new regulations, including the European Anti-Money Laundering Authority. But the work will not be complete until we are able to fulfil the persistent mandate of this European Parliament to also put an end to everything that makes it possible to launder money from illicit businesses on the territory of the European Union, through the margin of manoeuvre of its Member States. We're talking about g.olden visas and of golden passports, which have been strictly prohibited by this European Parliament. And the work will not be complete until we remove them completely from the legislation of the Member States of the European Union.

Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, since the beginning of Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine, 11 million people displaced by horror have entered the territory of the European Union and at least 4 million have decided to remain there indefinitely. And none of that has questioned the European social model or our capacity for inclusion. Therefore, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, why not change the predominantly negative view of migration and asylum-seekers, which is the only effective way, not only to defuse the electoral exploitation of panic and rejection of migrants and asylum-seekers, but also to dismantle the business model of smugglers who exploit the desperation of human beings? The Pact on Migration and Asylum and its roadmap are an opportunity to finally strike a balance between binding solidarity and shared responsibility. But the task will not be complete until we open legal avenues and establish humanitarian visas and a European rescue and rescue mechanism at sea that will enable and oblige all Member States to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law.

That is a point. It was unfortunately not adopted, by only two votes. A very tight vote was decisive in this particular case. My assumption is that most of the Members which voted against should have reason to rethink, and particularly some who voted against must have a reason to be sorry about it, because there is the situation as you describe it: some governments are doing their best and investing massive public resources to save lives at sea while others are misbehaving grossly. And this gross despising of the importance of human life and their international obligations according to humanitarian international law is precisely because of the lack of a European binding framework, which is the aim of that resolution. My message is that we shouldn’t stop until we have the job done.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, should it be possible and tolerable in the European Union to criminalise humanitarian assistance, including rescue and rescue operations at sea? The answer is no, and yet it happens, because it still depends too much on the legislation of the Member States and, even worse, on the behaviour of national governments, in the absence of a binding European framework. This legislature started with a tight vote - by just two votes - of a resolution, of which I was rapporteur, looking for a binding framework, a European rescue and rescue mechanism that cooperates with the efforts of the Member States, which there are, but which also attacks in origin the business model of the mafias that traffic in people and that exploit, therefore, the despair of those who are willing to do anything and to give up their lives in the effort and lose it in order to reach the European Union. This effort therefore needs to be complemented by legal avenues –legal pathways— the humanitarian visas with which the last legislature ended, with an adopted resolution of which I was also rapporteur. I conclude by stating the obvious: Saving lives at sea cannot be a crime. It is an obligation of international humanitarian law and must also be an obligation – and we cannot stop until it is achieved – of European law. (The speaker agreed to respond to an intervention under the "blue card" procedure)

Madam President, Commissioner Johansson, we welcome the fact that a debate in the plenary of the European Parliament on the fight against corruption and fraud affecting the financial interests of the Union is already a custom: is institutionalised. Not long ago it was unthinkable; I remember well that the first anti-corruption strategy was launched by your predecessor, Commissioner Malmström. As Chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I was rapporteur for the Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, which acts as the legal basis for the competence conferred on the EPPO; Let no one be alarmed if I consider it an institution, in the federal sense, capable of prosecuting after having supranationally investigated the financial attacks against the financial interests of the Union. But no European institution replaces the Member States, nor their judicial powers, nor their public prosecutors' offices. Therefore, any shortcomings in the adjustment that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office may experience vis-à-vis national public prosecutors’ offices and national judicial authorities require constant training, ensured by the Commission as guardian of the Treaties, in relation to the fight against fraud and the financial interests of the Union.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, for those of us who have the honour of representing citizens in this European Parliament, any six-monthly presidency of the country from which we come this year is a precious occasion to show unity in a pro-European commitment based on shared country objectives. Gentlemen of the Popular Party, are you not ashamed to miss this opportunity to show here your confrontation with the Government of Spain? Who do they want to mislead by hiding the fact that the problem identified in the Commission’s rule of law reports in relation to Spain is the blockade, the hijacking of constitutional bodies that require three-fifths parliamentary majorities – thus qualified – for renewal? The worst example is the General Council of the Judiciary, which is a governing body of the Judiciary, blocked, this year 2023, for five years due to the exclusive responsibility of the Popular Party, which does not accept the results of the polls. Five years in which the Popular Party has tried to perpetuate the absolute majority it had in 2011, but lost in 2015, a whopping eight years ago, this 2023. They're absolutely not fooling anyone. They do so to the serious detriment of the judiciary, the administration of justice and the fundamental rights of citizens, including access to judicial protection for citizens, which has been adversely affected by the blockade and abduction of the General Council of the Judiciary. I tell you more, gentlemen of the People's Party: the European idea of democracy effectively requires governing with the majority you invest in the parliament of the Member State, respecting minorities. Yes, the European idea of democracy requires knowing how to govern with respect for minorities, but there is something even more important: the European idea of democracy requires knowing how to lose by recognizing the result when you lose the elections and the People's Party has not been able to lose and that is the origin of the problem. He has not been able to lose the elections and, therefore, he is sliding along the same slope as the followers of Trump and Bolsonaro - we have to deplore here that we never heard them criticize them -, who have not been able to lose, have not been able to recognize the result of the polls. European democracy requires recognising the result, knowing how to lose. But let us not lose hope, you still have an opportunity to learn to lose after no less than forty years of coexistence in the Spanish constitutional democracy, savoring defeat again this December 2023.

Madam President Picierno, President Michel, Vice-President Šefčovič, there is no mention of a single debate on Council conclusions in this parliamentary term that did not discuss migration and the rule of law situation in the European Union. It is true that Putin's brutal, illegal and criminal war against Ukraine has resized them both. With regard to migration, however, the humanitarian response deployed by the European Union provides an opportunity to finally strike the right balance between binding solidarity and shared responsibility, pending the finalisation, in line with the roadmap, of the European Union's New Pact on Migration and Asylum. As regards the rule of law, we welcome the announcement made by the Swedish Presidency that it will resume hearings in respect of the Article 7 procedure, which concerns two states that are manifestly in breach of the rules of the rule of law: Hungary and Poland. We welcome the fact that Poland has reformed its Disciplinary Chamber and its judicial laws in accordance with the mandates of this Parliament, under pressure from the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation. But let me underline the decisive role that the European Parliament has played in achieving this step forward, which means the right direction in complying with the rules of the rule of law.

Madam President, Commissioner, I am among those who conclude that the setbacks and crises from which we come, such as this illegal, unjust and criminal war of aggression, must make the European Union grow in its proclaimed vocation to be globally relevant and, therefore, contribute to the globalisation not only of artificial intelligence, the digital agenda and the fight against climate change, but also of criminal law and criminal justice against impunity for war crimes. It is not easy, because the European Union has to maintain its unity, not only by supporting Ukraine until Putin is finally defeated, but also by maintaining its unity to act in the international community and finally create that special tribunal to complement the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of War Crimes. And, because it will not be easy, it will be necessary to use a lot of united political will from all the Member States and the European Union to act in the international community and in the United Nations until a special criminal court against crimes of aggression is established. When there is a will, there is a way.

Madam President, Commissioner Reynders, indeed, one year since the brutal war of aggression that we call Putin's war against Ukraine, which has had seismic consequences on the European neighbourhood as a whole from a social and economic point of view, from an energy point of view, from a humanitarian point of view, but also from a geostrategic point of view, which has led to an exercise in unity for which Russia has been politically punished. It is said little that she has been expelled from the Council of Europe. This is the first time this has happened in an international organisation that had 47 Member States and now has 46; Russia, out. But there have been strong economic sanctions, with the support of the European Parliament's urgency procedures, and legal sanctions as well, with the support of this European Parliament; urgency procedure: the reform of Eurojust to work with the International Criminal Prosecutor’s Office and joint investigation teams to ensure that there will be no impunity for war criminals. But this requires two conditions. The first, that Putin does not get away with it, that is, that he is defeated in this war of aggression. The second is that we maintain unity until we effectively bring to the bench of criminal justice, in some of its formats, the war criminals who are perpetrating crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity on Ukrainian territory.

Madam President Metsola, Prime Minister Kristersson, the Swedish Presidency takes place this year 2023, decisive for the balance of achievements of this 2019-2024 legislature. You have heard the many expectations placed on the Swedish Presidency, but also expressions of concern to see them devalued on a main issue, such as the one referred to as a 'migration threat of mass emigration', which contradicts what the majority of this Parliament has agreed in the roadmap signed with the Presidencies until the end of this legislature, including the Swedish one, which wants to make the New Pact on Migration and Asylum a historic opportunity to give a response to the migration issue that is European, that is, consistent with its values, and, above all, the only way to make it truly effective. This requires a balance, when fulfilling the mandate of Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, between binding solidarity and shared responsibility, that is, not to turn our backs on the frontline states in the Mediterranean or those that have a line in the Mediterranean and that also have one in the Atlantic, as is the case of Spain with the Canary Islands.

Madam President, Commissioner, this is the 30th anniversary of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities by the UN General Assembly. It is clear that, after these thirty years, there are millions and millions of people belonging to minorities who continue to suffer forced assimilation, persecution, prejudice, discrimination, stereotypes, hatred and violence. And the Committee on Freedoms, Justice and Home Affairs is particularly concerned about this pressure on persons belonging to minorities in the immigration and asylum processes: stateless persons, minors, particularly vulnerable persons and, of course, women belonging to minorities, who are always singularly harmed by gender-based violence, by violence of all kinds and, therefore, by unaffordable attacks on their fundamental rights and dignity. And that is why the United Nations continues to insist on the need for the European Union to show political leadership, in accordance with the values proclaimed in Article 2, which especially prohibit discrimination based on membership of minorities and which, moreover, include as a fundamental value of the European Union the protection of minorities. And that is why the European Parliament adopted in 2018 a strong resolution demanding minimum European standards for the protection of persons belonging to minorities. So the European Parliament is calling for legislation, with a precise definition of the European concept of minorities and standards of protection, which will therefore be required of all Member States of the European Union. This will be a way to honour this 30th anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities.

Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner Hahn, the Rule of Law Report, the third of this year 2022, is fully correct to receive a point underlined by the LIBE Committee: freedom of the press and freedom of pluralism in the context of the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy. Because there is no freedom that does not have pluralism as a corollary. But to ensure pluralism, two requirements are needed. The first is transparency in media ownership and investment in media advertising. The second is to assure journalists against truculent demands to intimidate them or quarrels to scare them - whether they are called Ignacio Cembrero, a Spanish journalist, or from any other Member State - and, of course, to protect them against attacks on their lives. There is a room in this European Parliament named after Daphne Caruana, but there is less talk of Yorgos Karaivaz, a Greek journalist similarly murdered in 2021. Therefore, two key initiatives: the legislative one, to protect journalists from intimidating incitement, and the second, the Media Freedom Act, to establish European standards for the protection of press freedom and information pluralism.

Mr President, Commissioner Gentiloni, there will come a day when the European Union will dare once and for all to make a more perfect union as we Europeans dream, and when national vetoes will be an antique and a relic of the past. Unanimity can make sense for constitutional issues and for the enlargement of the European Union itself. But experience clearly shows that national vetoes have become a brake, an obstacle, if not a possibility for a single Member State to exercise rights without obligations. And the right is to prevent the European Union's decision-making and legislative machinery from functioning. And therefore prevent the European Union from being able to respond. Blocking, jamming in a dizzying time that demands responses as fast as effective. Is it permissible to maintain the veto in own resources indefinitely? On the big financial issues? In the Multiannual Financial Framework? Is it permissible for the veto to be exercised in order to prevent access to free movement and the Schengen area for two Member States by a single Member State of the European Union? The answer is simply no. And that is why it is urgent to review the veto rule, which in experience means that the European Union can remain like a giant, not slow-moving, but frozen in time, when everyone around it is demanding answers so that the European Union can prove its will to be, yes, a more perfect union. I hope our eyes see it. And what I am sure of is that many of the hearts throbbing in this European Parliament will be happy about it.

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.