Speeches

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, sixteen years ago Viktor Orbán led an increasingly despotic, increasingly putinesque and increasingly anti-European government in Hungary. There are countless debates and resolutions that we have adopted in this European Parliament, starting with the activation of Article 7, with an extraordinary sanction that should have long ago deprived Hungary of its voting rights in the Council, as a result of its disregard for EU law. And what did Viktor Orbán do? Systematically blackmail the rest of the Member States until the economic sanctions imposed by the Conditionality Regulation are lifted, preventing unanimity where necessary: foreign policy and security and defence policy. And now we have a security and defence tool, which is exactly the SAFE instrument, the Rearm Europe Plan, which is going to inject no less than EUR 16.5 billion into the pockets of Viktor Orbán and his cronies - in an election year, because there are elections in Hungary this year! Are we serious? That is not what the European Parliament wants. The European Parliament opted for the suspension of the ban on funds to Hungary until it complies with EU law, respects the rights of minorities and respects the rights of Hungarian citizens, who are directly democratically represented, including in this European Parliament.

Madam President, High Representative Kallas, if the European Union wants to take human rights seriously, as a priority of its foreign policy, what it has to do is follow the report of our colleague Francisco Assis. First, there must be sufficient funding, budgets, programmes and conditionality of humanitarian aid for real progress on gender equality and in relentless combat against the death penalty and arbitrary detentions as in Iran, as well as a commitment against impunity and support for the International Criminal Court and the members of the International Criminal Court, who are being unjustly persecuted and harassed by the US Administration. The European Union must also give unconditional support to those who fight impunity and ensure that there are no double standards in international human rights law; the European Union cannot afford it. It must be the same in Gaza and Venezuela – not just in Ukraine, no, the same in Gaza, Venezuela and Iran, where human rights are violated.

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

Mr President, High Representative Kaja Kallas, many of us here reject foreign intervention in Venezuela as illegal and contrary to international law and, for the same reason, we cannot contemplate or support the same intervention in Iran. But that doesn't mean silence or helplessness. First, all sanctions within reach and those that are still lacking are necessary; Stand up to remove obstacles. Second, strong support must be given to the demonstrators – brave women and young rebels – in the face of the tyranny of the Ayatollahs. But, thirdly, all European diplomacy – that of its Member States and that of its European External Action Service – must be put at the service of democratic change in Iran that is not focused on oil, but on human rights and that, therefore, avoids double standards, which is where the legitimacy of the European Union is broken before the citizens who observe us and who demand from us a commitment to the citizenship that is manifested in Iran, brutally repressed by the regime of the Ayatollahs.

Madam President, Vice-President Virkkunen, this is a step in the right direction, because our security does not depend on the linear increase of 27 Member States’ budgets, much less on the arbitrarily imposed 5% percentage by those who do not even respect us, no. It depends on this pooling of capabilities, on the commitment to cybersecurity at European level to protect the integrity of our electoral processes and to protect the integrity of our education, health systems – health data are extremely sensitive – and also on the financial system, which is exposed at any time to a cyber attack, which makes more and more European citizens tempted to have cash at home just in case. But no strategy will be properly sustained if we are not able to give content to that mantra that we repeat so much of our digital sovereignty - so we call it - which requires a common commitment to innovation and research, with incentives such as those we discussed yesterday, with a common European strategy and legislation.

Mr President, High Representative Kaja Kallas, the leak by the President of the United States of messages sent by European leaders and the Secretary-General of NATO reveals something more serious than their content, that is, how he perceives us: weak, divided and, above all, dispensable for their language of force. It depends on their responsibility that, in the first place, this perception changes in what remains of the European Union's credibility and respectability vis-à-vis the global actors who are watching us, but fundamentally in what the European Union has confidence in and, therefore, legitimation of citizens, who want a united and strong response and, above all, a response that does not practice the double standards that they so detest. Because they have censored double standards in our response in Ukraine and Gaza, but we cannot afford that double standard any less than in Greenland, which affects the Kingdom of Denmark and therefore affects the entire European Union.

Madam President, Vice-President Virkkunen, you see, in this debate there are two approaches to sexual violence against children and women and the pornography of the ultra-false on the net, which are the business model of the digital oligarchy: the far right thinks it is freedom of expression, but we Europeans remember that we have passed laws in this European Parliament on digital services and artificial intelligence that say that what is crime outside the network must also be crime in the network. But there's more: we need a Commission that commits to demanding the rigorous application of European legislation to these oligarchs of the business model of digital platforms and that commits not to give in to the blackmail of these oligarchs protected by the White House and that, therefore, there is nothing like a digital bus that degrades the standard. Because it is about representing citizens, who have fundamental rights, and especially vulnerable people, women and children who are exposed to that infamous pornography and exploitation that causes sexual violence against their rights.

Madam President, Commissioner McGrath, what a bad thing it is to have hostile neighbours, the enemy at the gates! Putin's Russia, immediate border with the European Union, with its Kaliningrad enclave in Poland and its proxy, Lukashenko's Belarus, which threatens us with drones, balloons and attacks on the critical infrastructure of the European Union, but also with espionage and bribery. There we have seen national parliaments of the Member States bought by the interests of Russian military intelligence and a European parliamentarian, in the last legislature, also affected by that complicity with Russian espionage. Therefore, our response cannot be only reactive: 19 packages of sanctions against Russia, of course, but it has to be constructive and purposeful. If the Russians have an intelligence that acts against our interests, we must have a counterintelligence and a shared intelligence: a service that develops that effective intelligence embryo that we have in the European External Action Service to prevent and respond to when needed. In addition, it is imperative that we draw the consequences of the experience of the Special Committee on the European Shield of Democracy, not only to protect electoral systems, but also to be able to respond to that hybrid threat that disrupts the opinion-forming process in the Member States of the European Union and in the Union as a whole. It is the way to put an end to this constant interference of Russian espionage in the integrity of the democratic processes of the Member States and of the Union itself.

Madam President, Commissioner, the adoption, by this European Parliament, in 2020, of the Regulation on conditionality of access to European funds to compliance with the constitutional values of Article 2 (of the Treaty on European Union) was a formidable impetus to make it mandatory for all Member States subject – and not, in the event of a breach, to the imposition of Article 7 sanctions. However, it was not by chance that that regulation was appealed before the Court of Justice of the European Union by Hungary and Poland at the time, and the Court of Justice fully confirmed its compliance with European law. It is now a question of strengthening it – this is what this report proposes – so that precisely those shortcomings that have been identified – the Commission’s delay in taking decisions, the lack of transparency in the criteria for hearings and, above all, the difficulty of making the fund applicable to its ultimate beneficiaries, to its addressees, despite the imposition of conditionality – give rise to some lessons, as well as, of course, the possibility of strengthening its communication with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the scrutiny to be exercised by this European Parliament, which takes the rule of law very seriously. That's what the conditionality rule is all about: take the constitutional values of Article 2 seriously.

Mr President, Commissioner, explaining the European legislative procedure in a 700-seat Parliament and then approving 27 governments is not easy. But not only is it incomprehensible that this horizontal anti-discrimination directive has been blocked for no less than 13 years, but it is also unacceptable. We call it horizontal precisely because it is transversal and cross-sectoral and reinforces the possibility of protecting oneself against any discrimination prohibited by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the beauty of which is that it protects not only Europeans, but anyone – therefore also foreigners – and has a state-of-the-art anti-discrimination clause: not only does it prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion or belief, but it also prohibits discrimination based on age, disability, sexual orientation, property and the protection of minorities. Therefore, this Directive would strengthen the ability to protect against discrimination established by Member States in their legislation, as is the well-known case of Hungary, with its anti-LGTBI laws even criminalising Pride. Therefore, Presidency, it is high time to unblock this anti-discrimination directive and overcome the resistance of that minority of Member States that still refuse to accept it.

Mr President, Commissioner Šefčovič, we agree that Trump’s national security strategy – an insult to the European Union – accelerates our strategic autonomy and our declaration of independence. But the question is: how? With a multi-annual financial framework that does not have enough resources, that renationalises its policies in national envelopes and that does not provide funding for a European problem such as affordable public housing, the intervention of rental markets and the regulation of the intervention of vulture funds? How? Giving in to the green ambition policy to prolong combustion automotive? Or giving in to the blackmail of the great technological oligarchs who control polarizing algorithms? Isn't that what Trump wants by supporting far-right nationalisms and populisms? A weak and divided Europe? It is clear that the answer is the opposite: a united Europe, with a will to be, finally awake and faithful to its values.