Speeches

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)

Mr President, Commissioner, this European Parliament and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, which I chair, have fully exercised their responsibility to legislate the Common European Asylum System in all its parts, including this regulation on the European Union Agency for Asylum, with our rapporteur, Elena Yoncheva, at the helm. We see, again, how an embryonic organism grows exponentially in a short time. Established in 2011, the European Asylum Support Office, which had only 60 staff at its inception and EUR 10 million, now deploys more than 500 staff and has a budget of EUR 142 million. Carries out operations currently involving even 1 500 staff, who cooperate in the operations of the European Asylum Support Office, and has provided support to Member States in the exchange of good experiences and training; 43 000 people have followed the specialised courses to fully implement the Common European Asylum System. And now we finally adopt a regulation that projects the European Union Agency for Asylum into the future, with a binding mandate on fundamental rights and enhances its monitoring capacity (monitoring) of the Common European Asylum System and its implementation by the Member States. The efforts of those States with vulnerable borders to the south should be appreciated: Spain, Italy, Malta, Cyprus, Greece; that Mediterranean group that has allowed the unblocking of the so-called «package approach’: the package approach linking all the pieces of legislation of the Common European Asylum System to finally be able to adopt this new Regulation. But I want to send a message of commitment on fundamental rights, because it is a fundamental aspect of the Common European Asylum System. Not only Frontex, border guard, but also EASO should monitor fundamental rights when fully implementing the Common European Asylum System project.

Madam President, Commissioner Gentiloni, over the last few years this European Parliament has devoted many hours of work to combating money laundering from illicit businesses and tax evasion. In the past legislature, the LuxLeaks revelations and, later, the Panama Papers led to the commission of inquiry of which I was a member and from which important lessons were drawn to clarify the true ownership of assets abroad, as well as to establish a blacklist and a grey list of non-cooperative countries that contribute to tax evasion. And from there comes a new Anti-Laundering Directive – European criminal law – and a European Regulation, and it is clear that it is not enough yet, because the Pandora Papers again show that there is not only a global problem, but a European problem, of fiscal demoralisation, of capital relocation and loss of collection, with less social status and more tax injustice. It is therefore clear that the whole EU, with the Commission at the forefront, must wage a joint battle against tax havens and for the tax harmonisation of companies and capital. But, while this comes, more and better can still be done to ensure transparency in the accountability of assets abroad and, above all, for the legal control of those firms, firms, consultancies that serve evasion and encourage corruption, corruption of the rulers: Not the rulers of remote countries, the rulers of the European Union, to our shame.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, the tremendous challenges imposed by the neighbourhood with the European Union of Belarus under the infamous Lukashenko regime do not, of course, boil down to migration issues. But it is impossible to ignore, from the perspective of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the rights of potential asylum seekers at the EU's external borders, which include Lithuania, Latvia and, of course, Poland. And it is crucial to ensure transparency and oversight in all border operations, particularly those that question the effectiveness of the Common European Asylum System. The Commission is the guardian of the Treaties and must ensure that asylum procedures and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are observed and respected also by European Union agencies, including in Frontex operations. And, of course, it would be good if the European Union Agency for Asylum were also involved, which is why we have adopted the regulation that makes it grow to exercise supervision over the respect of the Common European Asylum System at all the Union's external borders, including those involving that infamous Lukashenko regime.

Mr President, High Representative Borrell, we are debating and voting in this plenary session of the European Parliament on nothing less than a very extensive resolution on relations between the European Union and the United States. I will focus – seeing that they are not what they were, let us not deceive ourselves, and, in the global disorder from which we come, they will hardly be again soon – on those issues that matter most to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs that I chair: in the remaining problems. One, a new data transfer agreement – after the setbacks of the judgments of the Court of Justice in the Schrems case – as a matter of urgency. Another is the need to complete visa reciprocity between the United States and the European Union. Because, after Poland and soon Croatia have joined, the situations of Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus are still pending. But on the positive side, we certainly have intense collaboration on human rights. And there we have much to do in the fight against evils that we must confront together: racism and cybercrime; even with the differences we have on the question of the International Criminal Court. But there is also undoubtedly a challenge in addressing hybrid threats and foreign interference in democratic processes: China and Russia; in addition to, of course, the common effort, within the framework of the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to fight for the defence of human rights and democracy.

Madam President, for more than two weeks a volcano has roared in La Palma: more than 80 million cubic meters of fire, lava and sulfur. It is happening in the Canary Islands, an outermost region of the European Union, as much Europe as Brussels or Strasbourg. And the citizenship concerned is full European citizenship, and this Parliament represents it. They are entitled to all our solidarity and to the assistance of the Copernicus satellite network, which monitors the eruption seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and that of the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, but also that of the European Union Solidarity Fund, which has a budget of EUR 500 million. The threshold for access to these EUR 500 million far exceeds the 1% of GDP in damage required in an outermost region: Canary Islands. But the advance of up to 10% requires the consent of this European Parliament. And, at the time of reparation of damages, solidarity must be effective and must be immediate. The European Parliament has to approve this advance of the Solidarity Fund, because the consistency and strength of the Union is measured in how it responds at its smallest, most remote, most vulnerable link. The strength of the European Union is demonstrated by our solidarity with La Palma.